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.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Days Since Last Shooting II
- Thread starter The Rube
- Start date
- Status
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
Registered User
Re: Days Since Last Shooting II
Sure you are. You're giving up your right to not wear a seatbelt or risk getting a fine.
Sure you are. You're giving up your right to not wear a seatbelt or risk getting a fine.
Re: Days Since Last Shooting II
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 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
Armed
Re: Days Since Last Shooting II
Driving without a seatbelt is almost as stupid as riding a motorcycle without a helmet.
Driving without a seatbelt is almost as stupid as riding a motorcycle without a helmet.
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.
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.
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
Well-known member
Re: Days Since Last Shooting II
Christ... it could've been me getting killed/permanently disabled instead.
http://www.kare11.com/news/nation-w...room-facing-lollapalooza-in-chicago/481007076
Christ... it could've been me getting killed/permanently disabled instead.
http://www.kare11.com/news/nation-w...room-facing-lollapalooza-in-chicago/481007076
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Days Since Last Shooting II
Bump Stocks sold out everywhere.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/l...hose-bump-stock-turns-gun-machine-gun-n807576
Bump Stocks sold out everywhere.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/l...hose-bump-stock-turns-gun-machine-gun-n807576
French Rage
NICKERSON HAS [CENSORED]
Re: Days Since Last Shooting II
According to Fox and Friends, it's athiest's fault: https://www.salon.com/2017/10/04/stephen-paddock-athetist-fox-and-friends/
Steve Doocy has a mangina.
According to Fox and Friends, it's athiest's fault: https://www.salon.com/2017/10/04/stephen-paddock-athetist-fox-and-friends/
Steve Doocy has a mangina.
Re: Days Since Last Shooting II
Aside from the fact that your example happened 125 years ago and wasn't actually a mass murder, you raise a really good point.
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
Microlot Marxist
Re: Days Since Last Shooting II
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).
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).
Re: Days Since Last Shooting II
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.
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.
Re: Days Since Last Shooting II
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.
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
Teaching you how to Bucky.
Re: Days Since Last Shooting II
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.
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.
Re: Days Since Last Shooting II
If passing new laws were the answer to every societal problem, then we'd already be living in a utopia.
I realize that the following is not a popular viewpoint these days...IMHO the only real "solution" to these incidents is better parenting, increased peer pressure, and direct citizen action. it seems to me that there is no governmental solution that will work; at best a more assertive citizen-police partnership is called for.
Blaming other people for one's own problems (so that "striking back" can be rationalized as somehow okay) ultimately seems to be the "root cause" of all these incidents.
If passing new laws were the answer to every societal problem, then we'd already be living in a utopia.
I realize that the following is not a popular viewpoint these days...IMHO the only real "solution" to these incidents is better parenting, increased peer pressure, and direct citizen action. it seems to me that there is no governmental solution that will work; at best a more assertive citizen-police partnership is called for.
Blaming other people for one's own problems (so that "striking back" can be rationalized as somehow okay) ultimately seems to be the "root cause" of all these incidents.
Re: Days Since Last Shooting II
No, we can't stop people from killing other people.
But why is it so bad to put in efforts to reduce the amount of harm these people can do? Smaller magazines would have shortened the time each gun could be used. Taking out the mechanism that allowed the guns to fire automatically would have also reduced the number of shots fire. Both would have reduced the number of dead an injured.
Why should we accept HUGE mass murders when they can be reduced by some very simple means?
The goal can never be 0 mass murders, as that is impossible- I agree. And that "goal" should also not be the reason we do nothing.
I'm tired of the "evil is evil" excuse against efforts to reduce how evil someone can be.
No, we can't stop people from killing other people.
But why is it so bad to put in efforts to reduce the amount of harm these people can do? Smaller magazines would have shortened the time each gun could be used. Taking out the mechanism that allowed the guns to fire automatically would have also reduced the number of shots fire. Both would have reduced the number of dead an injured.
Why should we accept HUGE mass murders when they can be reduced by some very simple means?
The goal can never be 0 mass murders, as that is impossible- I agree. And that "goal" should also not be the reason we do nothing.
I'm tired of the "evil is evil" excuse against efforts to reduce how evil someone can be.
Re: Days Since Last Shooting II
The problem of that idea is that if we go by what gun lemmings like you suggest- there should not be ANY safety items in cars. None at all.
Seat belts, crush zones, and air bags save a lot of lives compared to had they not been there.
Why can't we do the same for guns?
YOUR side is that we should do NOTHING. When reduction in harm is so easy. Not elimination, for sure. But the potential harm can be reduced.
The problem of that idea is that if we go by what gun lemmings like you suggest- there should not be ANY safety items in cars. None at all.
Seat belts, crush zones, and air bags save a lot of lives compared to had they not been there.
Why can't we do the same for guns?
YOUR side is that we should do NOTHING. When reduction in harm is so easy. Not elimination, for sure. But the potential harm can be reduced.
Re: Days Since Last Shooting II
This is entering Drew level stupid, please stop.
This is entering Drew level stupid, please stop.
- Status