PDA

View Full Version : Another day... Another mass shooting...



Bunch
07-24-2015, 05:00 AM
Business as usual...

Obviously we need more guns to stop these incidents...


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/reports-of-theater-shooting-in-lafayette-louisiana/

garhkal
07-24-2015, 07:00 AM
Business as usual...

Obviously we need more guns to stop these incidents...


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/reports-of-theater-shooting-in-lafayette-louisiana/

OR better enforcement of the gun laws we already have.

BUT until more info comes out i cannot comment much more.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
07-24-2015, 01:52 PM
Business as usual...

Obviously we need more guns to stop these incidents...


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/reports-of-theater-shooting-in-lafayette-louisiana/

Fact: if someone is approaching you to kill you with a gun, you have a much better chance of living if you had a gun too. Liberals don't understand this. They believe that MORE laws are the answer to making you safe. However, we all know who obeys laws and who does not.

I really wish the national media outlets mentioned every time a gun was used to prevent a murder. In the last two years in Vegas alone, I know of four instances where the armed homeowner stopped a home invasion from succeeding. However, only the local media mentioned it. The national media wouldn't have the airtime to inform the public everytime a gun SAVED a life. It just happens too many times.

garhkal
07-24-2015, 07:12 PM
And once again the media is saying the shooter was Mental. What is it with nearly ever shooter we have had in the past 2-3 years, having "mental problems'??

Bos Mutus
07-24-2015, 07:31 PM
Fact: if someone is approaching you to kill you with a gun, you have a much better chance of living if you had a gun too. Liberals don't understand this. They believe that MORE laws are the answer to making you safe. However, we all know who obeys laws and who does not.

I really wish the national media outlets mentioned every time a gun was used to prevent a murder. In the last two years in Vegas alone, I know of four instances where the armed homeowner stopped a home invasion from succeeding. However, only the local media mentioned it. The national media wouldn't have the airtime to inform the public everytime a gun SAVED a life. It just happens too many times.

I'm a gun owner, but not really a huge gun guy...I'm okay with most people having guns and think it's a pretty good idea to have one at home...even carry.

Both sides can quote "examples" of it being too easy to have a gun....or having a gun saved a life...or having a gun cost a life...etc. You can read some "studies" that a privately owned gun is 40 times more likely to be used on the family that owns it rather than to protect them....or that gun owners are 9 times more likely to be injured by gun accidents than non-gun owners are to be attacked by guns...OTOH, you can read statistics of all the "non-firing" prevention that guns did...i.e. possession of a gun prevented someone else from firing...how do you count these statistics?

Bottom line...is almost all the studies on use of guns and gun safety are privately funded...by people from one side or the other...and are performed with a conclusion they already want to prove in mind.

You know 4 times a gun in Las Vegas was used to prevent a murder? How many times were they used to murder someone? How many accidental gun fatalies occurred in Vegas in the last 2 years? My guess is a lot more than 4.

My issue isn't anti-gun...my issue is that we don't have any honest studies on any of this.

Why aren't there independent honest studies on gun safety vs. rightful use?... Well, one big reason is that there is a law that says Federal Govt. money may not be used to study gun safety. Say what? Yeah, that's right...we can not have a govt. study on gun safety.

Now that sounds silly...of course, it's because the Gun Lobby is too afraid that the Anti-Gun people would use such a study to take away their guns.

I think we'd all be better of if we all accepted a few realities here:

1) We will NEVER rid the U.S. of normal people being able to buy and own guns legally. Of course, this is what the anti-gun groups ultimately want...all private gun ownership banned. Once they realize this is never going to happen, the better off we'll be.

2) Guns can be made safer. They can have more clear indicators of round-in-chamber, for example. The pro-gun groups seem to think every attempt to make guns safer is an step on the road to taking them all away....now that doesn't stop the intentional use of guns to commit crimes, but it'd help the accidental injury part maybe.

3) Gun Free zones don't work and are stupid. They will only work if the entire country is a gun free zone and, well, see #1.

Bos Mutus
07-24-2015, 07:32 PM
And once again the media is saying the shooter was Mental. What is it with nearly ever shooter we have had in the past 2-3 years, having "mental problems'??

Sane people generally don't shoot up theaters.

The media coverage and discussion we all have on these incidents very much feeds into the mentally ill's desire to "show them all"...and get some attention, whatever.

Why would a sane person shoot up a theater?

Rainmaker
07-24-2015, 07:40 PM
Sane people generally don't shoot up theaters.

The media coverage and discussion we all have on these incidents very much feeds into the mentally ill's desire to "show them all"...and get some attention, whatever.

Why would a sane person shoot up a theater?

Now, this is what I'm talking about...Accuracy Brevity Clarity! A++ good Bos!

Bunch
07-24-2015, 07:45 PM
Why would a sane person shoot up a theater?

Thats my main objection to the "responsible gun owner" argument. Thing is that people are so called "responsible gun owners" until they decide to kill their spouse, their children, their neighbor ... Then at that point they cease to be "responsible gun owner" guy/gals and become "mental" cases.

Bos Mutus
07-24-2015, 07:51 PM
Thats my main objection to the "responsible gun owner" argument. Thing is that people are so called "responsible gun owners" until they decide to kill their spouse, their children, their neighbor ... Then at that point they cease to be "responsible gun owner" guy/gals and become "mental" cases.

This is a far more difficult issue than people give it credit for.

On a few of these cases, the shooters even had a record of getting mental health treatment. Okay, so people say, " gee, let's just have a mental health register and prevent those people from buying guns like we do felons or whatever."

There are huge repercussions to that simplistic idea.

How many gun owners might avoid getting needed mental health treatment of any kind for fear that they will lose their guns?
We already talk about the stigma of getting mental health treatment in the military because it affects sensitive position, clearances, etc...how many more veterans might avoid getting help if they would lose their guns by doing so? I think it could be significant...

OTOH, how irresponsibile is it to maintain someone's security clearance when you know they have serious mental health issues?

Tough call.

You're right...we don't know who these guys are until they do it...and trying to identify them ahead of time means identifying thousands who would never in the same basket.

UncaRastus
07-24-2015, 08:12 PM
Bunch,

'sup, my friend?

Rainmaker
07-24-2015, 08:25 PM
I'm a gun owner, but not really a huge gun guy...I'm okay with most people having guns and think it's a pretty good idea to have one at home...even carry.

Both sides can quote "examples" of it being too easy to have a gun....or having a gun saved a life...or having a gun cost a life...etc. You can read some "studies" that a privately owned gun is 40 times more likely to be used on the family that owns it rather than to protect them....or that gun owners are 9 times more likely to be injured by gun accidents than non-gun owners are to be attacked by guns...OTOH, you can read statistics of all the "non-firing" prevention that guns did...i.e. possession of a gun prevented someone else from firing...how do you count these statistics?

Bottom line...is almost all the studies on use of guns and gun safety are privately funded...by people from one side or the other...and are performed with a conclusion they already want to prove in mind.

You know 4 times a gun in Las Vegas was used to prevent a murder? How many times were they used to murder someone? How many accidental gun fatalies occurred in Vegas in the last 2 years? My guess is a lot more than 4.

My issue isn't anti-gun...my issue is that we don't have any honest studies on any of this.

Why aren't there independent honest studies on gun safety vs. rightful use?... Well, one big reason is that there is a law that says Federal Govt. money may not be used to study gun safety. Say what? Yeah, that's right...we can not have a govt. study on gun safety.

Now that sounds silly...of course, it's because the Gun Lobby is too afraid that the Anti-Gun people would use such a study to take away their guns.

I think we'd all be better of if we all accepted a few realities here:

1) We will NEVER rid the U.S. of normal people being able to buy and own guns legally. Of course, this is what the anti-gun groups ultimately want...all private gun ownership banned. Once they realize this is never going to happen, the better off we'll be.

2) Guns can be made safer. They can have more clear indicators of round-in-chamber, for example. The pro-gun groups seem to think every attempt to make guns safer is an step on the road to taking them all away....now that doesn't stop the intentional use of guns to commit crimes, but it'd help the accidental injury part maybe.

3) Gun Free zones don't work and are stupid. They will only work if the entire country is a gun free zone and, well, see #1.

Shall not be infringed. 4 words. End of discussion.

Bunch
07-24-2015, 08:54 PM
Bunch,

'sup, my friend?

Hi there bro!!

garhkal
07-25-2015, 01:15 PM
This is a far more difficult issue than people give it credit for.

On a few of these cases, the shooters even had a record of getting mental health treatment. Okay, so people say, " gee, let's just have a mental health register and prevent those people from buying guns like we do felons or whatever."

There are huge repercussions to that simplistic idea.

How many gun owners might avoid getting needed mental health treatment of any kind for fear that they will lose their guns?
We already talk about the stigma of getting mental health treatment in the military because it affects sensitive position, clearances, etc...how many more veterans might avoid getting help if they would lose their guns by doing so? I think it could be significant...

OTOH, how irresponsibile is it to maintain someone's security clearance when you know they have serious mental health issues?

Tough call.

You're right...we don't know who these guys are until they do it...and trying to identify them ahead of time means identifying thousands who would never in the same basket.

Additionally what 'mental issues' would qualify someone as being unable to own a gun?
Would being OCD, ADD, ADHD qualify? What of being a klepto?
What of someone who's just senile? Has Altzheimers?

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
07-25-2015, 03:00 PM
Additionally what 'mental issues' would qualify someone as being unable to own a gun?
Would being OCD, ADD, ADHD qualify? What of being a klepto?
What of someone who's just senile? Has Altzheimers?

Be careful. The Obama administration is looking for reasons, ANY reasons to deem American citizens as "unfit" to own a firearm.

Bos Mutus
07-25-2015, 03:21 PM
Additionally what 'mental issues' would qualify someone as being unable to own a gun?
Would being OCD, ADD, ADHD qualify? What of being a klepto?
What of someone who's just senile? Has Altzheimers?

Im not advocating any of that...just saying whenever this comes up there is talk of it and the idea has many repercussions

MikeKerriii
07-25-2015, 03:41 PM
Additionally what 'mental issues' would qualify someone as being unable to own a gun?
Would being OCD, ADD, ADHD qualify? What of being a klepto?
What of someone who's just senile? Has Altzheimers?

Clinical paranoia, schizophrenia, severe delusions and advanced Alzheimer's would be a good start. Actual psychosis not simple neuroses. Having a connection to reality should be a basic requirement to process a gun

UncaRastus
07-25-2015, 05:34 PM
Paranoid schizophrenia, which is different from paranoia or schizophrenia, major depression, bipolar (because a lot of them do not use the drugs which can help them), drug abusers, and felons, and those that are here in the USA illegally, to add to the list.

Gypsies, tramps and thieves (thanks for the reminder, Cher). OK, maybe not those guys. ;)

I do believe in the rights of the USA citizens to own guns. However, those that are mentally incapacitated or those that can not follow the laws of this country, either felons or illegal aliens, should not EVER be allowed to own, or to carry, or to use a firearm while in this country.

Enforcing will be a lot of problems, though. A lot of these people do NOT care if something is illegal or not. If they want a firearm, they will get that firearm. If notification of the mental status of a person is not done to the correct agencies, they can purchase their weapons. Some states are more lenient on what is required to purchase a firearm, I believe. I may be wrong on the last assumption made.

Felons? Why should they even want to go to the problem of having their felon status revisited by the court? It isn't that hard to see if someone is on vacation by watching the house of that person. Then it's bust down the back door, break a window, whatever, and get in, grab the weapons, and go about their business.

I do wish that every rifle and pistol legally owned in the USA had some kind of a fingerprint detector installed, so that if the person trying to use a weapon gotten through thievery could not use that weapon, because of the fingerprint ID being tied into an internal safety mechanism.

This has been tried, from what I have heard, and it does work. Might be a bit expensive, though.

To RM, 105s would be exempt. Just for you.

garhkal
07-26-2015, 03:36 AM
Be careful. The Obama administration is looking for reasons, ANY reasons to deem American citizens as "unfit" to own a firearm.

Don't i know it. Which is why i was asking what would qualify someone to not own a firearm? Who comes up with that list? Who verifies it?
If I own gun a, but am married to someone on the list cause of disorder B, do i now also have to give up my gun?

All these things need looking at.