Days Since Last Shooting II

[Drew S.]

Both true statements, but B has no bearing on A. We don't say, "all sorts of things can kill a driver so what's the point of seat belts?"

You're not really giving up any sort of right by wearing a seat belt though. A better comparison might be banning a certain model or feature.

[dave122793]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

You're not really giving up any sort of right by wearing a seat belt though. A better comparison might be banning a certain model or feature.

Sure you are. You're giving up your right to not wear a seatbelt or risk getting a fine.

[geezer]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

Sure you are. You're giving up your right to not wear a seatbelt.

I know a guy that says this with a straight face. He pulled the fuse for the warning bell because he "hates having a car tell him what to do." Still surviving as of last check.

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

Driving without a seatbelt is almost as stupid as riding a motorcycle without a helmet.

[joecct]

Driving without a seatbelt is almost as stupid as riding a motorcycle without a helmet.

See border between MA and NH.

Live free or die.

[Drew S.]

I know a guy that says this with a straight face. He pulled the fuse for the warning bell because he "hates having a car tell him what to do." Still surviving as of last check.

I wear a seatbelt religiously and hate that thing as well. I worry I'd mess something up if I tried to pull out the fuse though.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

Solutions are all about taking what actions you can that limit collateral damage, regardless of how small.

We should take most every single small step possible (that doesn't infringe on the Constitution or major foundational law) to limit these activities from occurring. Even if a mass murder needs to resort to rat poison, we should make him resort to rat poison. As stated before, the more hurdles - no matter how small - a perp has too take increases their chances of getting caught or saving incremental lives.

[trixR4kids]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

Christ... it could've been me getting killed/permanently disabled instead.

http://www.kare11.com/news/nation-wo...cago/481007076

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

Bump Stocks sold out everywhere.

The backlash doesn't appear to be hurting business ─ at least for the moment. Since the massacre Sunday, there has been an apparent run on the sale of bump-fire stocks, making them hard to obtain at online and brick-and-mortar gun shops. Cottle's company has stopped taking new orders online.

"Any time there’s a mass shooting, and the media talks about the type of firearms and what was used, that product becomes the product that everyone wants," said Michael Cargill, owner of Central Texas Gun Works in Austin, Texas.

Cargill said he has sold out of bump-fire stocks, his distributors' inventories are bare and he suspects that is the case around the country.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/la...ne-gun-n807576

[French Rage]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

According to Fox and Friends, it's athiest's fault: https://www.salon.com/2017/10/04/ste...x-and-friends/

Steve Doocy has a mangina.

[MaizeRage]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

For whatever reason (testosterone), women don't seem to perform mass murders like men do, though they have happened. Lizzy Borden.

Aside from the fact that your example happened 125 years ago and wasn't actually a mass murder, you raise a really good point.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

Driving without a seatbelt is almost as stupid as riding a motorcycle without a helmet.

Think of it as Darwinism in action.

We had a sniper in Michigan, too. Unsurprisingly, he had a few screws loose. Flaggy may be a conspiracy nut, but at least he hasn't started shooting people (yet).

[SJHovey]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

I think we all should get used to it, because in my opinion it isn't going to stop. I say this even while agreeing that we should be enacting some more common-sense gun control reforms to help prevent this stuff. Sure, it will probably help, but I don't think it is going to stop these kinds of tragedies from happening. The problem is the person, and we can and should do things to prevent an evil person from doing evil, but as long as the evil person is still out there, we're always going to be at risk of going through another massive tragedy.

Of course it isn't going to stop. Just like train or bus bombings aren't going to stop.

The guy got his 15 minutes of fame. His picture was splashed all over the news.

A person who is inclined, or suddenly becomes inclined to do such an act only wants to be the next, even bigger thing.

Shutting off 100% of the news coverage of these events is as impossible as removing 100% of the guns from private citizens in this country, but they both would have the identical effect.

[alfablue]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

Were any of the ingredients in the Boston bombs illegal? I thought most of them used hydrogen peroxide. I'm obviously pro-gun and I would give up some rights if it kept people safe. Unfortunately there are a lot of ways people can do harm, especially if they are willing to give up their lives.

I was telling some people from overseas about the DC snipers a few months, for me that is the freakiest thing we have ever had happen here. They were only using like a bolt action rifle and not a lot of bullets.

And had those two guys each had 2 of the weapons that this shooter had, and sprayed down on the finish line at the same time, it would have been far, far worse.

Which is to say- why let people easily get things that make already deadly weapons MORE deadly. That's so freaking dumb.

So take your fake concern and go away. To even suggest that you would would give up rights to keep people safe is such utter crap, it's not even funny. You are the same person who thought how terrible it was to restrict guns to people judged to be mentally on edge- as it was against their rights. Give me a break.

You don't don't care about anyone else but your guns. Otherwise you would actually stand up and say that some real restrictions make sense are would have done something to REDUCE (not eliminate- yes, evil is evil) harm.

Really, that's the core thing here- the gun people seem to pretend that since we can't 100% eliminate evil, so we can't 100% stop people from shooting other people that there's no point in putting in efforts to REDUCE the possibility of harm.

In this case, a restriction on the number of rounds than can be in weapon would have gone a long way. An elimination of mechanisms that increase the rate of fire from a weapon would have gone a long way.

The reaction that neither would have stopped the shooter so don't do anything is stupid. Both would have reduced the number of dead an injured, since BOTH would have reduced the number of rounds the shooter would have gotten off. Done.

It's also not that hard to imagine a rate reducing mechanism on an semi-automatic weapon, too. Which would have also reduced the number of rounds shot.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

Both true statements, but B has no bearing on A. We don't say, "all sorts of things can kill a driver so what's the point of seat belts?"

We also don't say we should ban cars, which in theory would save up to 35k lives/yr. I can certainly see a person in lower Manhattan theorizing that no one "needs" a car. Public transportation and approved and licensed cabs can take everyone everywhere. Which is completely true. Still, my own idea is that I would like to go where I want, whenever I want, in my own vehicle. Which I guess might be taken to mean I clearly don't care about the 35k dead people, but I have a hard time making the same connection myself.

Since the first time I saw a bump stock several years back I thought they were stupid and dangerous and should be banned. Not just because of the fire power, but also because I figured some of these idiots would shoot themselves or others accidentally, although I'm not aware of that actually being the case. They will be banned, or there will be a bill that doesn't just ban them, but does a bunch of other stuff that congress will fight over. But again, it's $30 and a ten year old's mechanical aptitude to accomplish, which isn't to say it's not worthwhile to enact a law, rather just that if someone has bad intentions it's simple to get around.