Mass Shooting in Atlanta

#929
#929
hog88 said:
The only subject worth discussing is what causes people to commit these violent acts and how to fix that.
Click to expand...

I find it hilarious that the same people that spit this line also argue that you can’t stop criminals from getting guns. So which is it, can you curb criminal behavior or can you not?
 
#930
#930
Y9 Vol said:
Well hell...who knew it is just that damn simple?
Click to expand...
Of course. Then the guy would have left and never thought to do harm again. Just like the criminals will not use a gun if they are outlawed. So easy a caveman could do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Y9 Vol
#934
#934
OHvol40 said:
I find it hilarious that the same people that spit this line also argue that you can’t stop criminals from getting guns. So which is it, can you curb criminal behavior or can you not?
Click to expand...

I think it's obvious that you can curb criminal behavior, crime including violent crime is down and has been trending down for years. We could curb criminal behavior even more by ending the war on drugs.

But that isn't what we are talking about. We are talking about random (for lack of a better word) mass murder events, events with no apparent underlying criminal motive like robbery and ect. Take all the guns out of circulation and we will still have these things happen, the perpetrators will just use a different tool. You want to focus on the inanimate object and not the human using the tool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wireless1 and BigOrangeTrain
#935
#935
OHvol40 said:
Same concept, like it or not. AKs have killed more people worldwide than any other weapon.
Click to expand...
I believe the current record holder is the sword/machete. The rifle is prefered because you get less of the victim's blood on you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#937
#937
OHvol40 said:
I find it hilarious that the same people that spit this line also argue that you can’t stop criminals from getting guns. So which is it, can you curb criminal behavior or can you not?
Click to expand...
You can curb some criminal behavior, but the fact is that you can only deal with violent criminal behavior by locking up the said violent offender and not letting them do it to anyone else...ever
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeTrain
#939
#939
Rickyvol77 said:
You can curb some criminal behavior, but the fact is that you can only deal with violent criminal behavior by locking up the said violent offender and not letting them do it to anyone else...ever
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting life imprisonment for first time offences?
 
#940
#940
BigOrangeTrain said:
So what happens when someone passes all required checks and still kills a group of people with a legally obtained firearm?
Click to expand...
I think that'll happen from time to time unfortunately. Not sure how you prevent the lone wolf with no past history of violent behavior or mental illness from legally obtaining one.

Problem is there are people who have no business getting a gun that easily legally get one.
 
#941
#941
BigOrangeTrain said:
So what’s your solution?
Click to expand...
It depends on what information is available to establish trends and then subsequently determining causation. Formulation of all possible solutions must rest on evidence and we have a lack of information in that regard.

If a drug company comes out with a drug and the drug ends up being related to an abnormal number of fatalities, you can bet that federal agencies would research and provide grants for research to gather every bit of information available. What were the circumstances, what was the patient’s condition, what happens with similar drugs, what other drugs might be involved, etc... then a determination would be made. Do you pull the drug altogether, do you change the dosage, is it interacting with other drugs so now it’s contraindicated for patients on the drugs it interacts with, is there a certain patient population that the drug is contraindicated for? All are possibilities and all might be implemented based on relevant INFORMATION GATHERING.

I know for certain the FDA wouldn’t throw their hands up and say “oh well, the patients that are taking these drugs just need to be responsible for their own actions” and leave it at that. That line of thinking is so lazy and ineffective.
 
#942
#942
Tyler Durden said:
Are you suggesting life imprisonment for first time offences?
Click to expand...
I think most of us agree the there is a difference between institutionalized and imprisoned.
There wouldn't be a first time for many if families were permitted to have their loved ones institutionalize when dangerous behavior is first recognized.
 
#943
#943
Tyler Durden said:
I think that'll happen from time to time unfortunately. Not sure how you prevent the lone wolf with no past history of violent behavior or mental illness from legally obtaining one.

Problem is there are people who have no business getting a gun that easily legally get one.
Click to expand...

So how much more strict can the background checks get?
 
#944
#944
OHvol40 said:
It depends on what information is available to establish trends and then subsequently determining causation. Formulation of all possible solutions must rest on evidence and we have a lack of information in that regard.

If a drug company comes out with a drug and the drug ends up being related to an abnormal number of fatalities, you can bet that federal agencies would research and provide grants for research to gather every bit of information available. What were the circumstances, what was the patient’s condition, what happens with similar drugs, what other drugs might be involved, etc... then a determination would be made. Do you pull the drug altogether, do you change the dosage, is it interacting with other drugs so now it’s contraindicated for patients on the drugs it interacts with, is there a certain patient population that the drug is contraindicated for? All are possibilities and all might be implemented based on relevant INFORMATION GATHERING.

I know for certain the FDA wouldn’t throw their hands up and say “oh well, the patients that are taking these drugs just need to be responsible for their own actions” and leave it at that. That line of thinking is so lazy and ineffective.
Click to expand...

And to my knowledge we are NOT gathering the information on WHY, what caused these people to commit these terrible acts.
 
#946
#946
BigOrangeTrain said:
So what’s your solution?
Click to expand...

The solution is simple. It requires restrictions on another amendment to our constitution, ie a restriction on freedom of the press. And we have a path to follow which has already produced results.
Networks and sports leagues chose to strip publicity away from streakers a few decades ago. That decision helped facilitate a decline in the number of spectators wanting to streak and make a spectacle of themselves. If there's no 15 minutes of fame, there's no reason to do it.

The name of a mass murderer should be withheld from public. Give them absolutely no pub whatsoever. Without notoriety, the events will decline.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wireless1, hog88 and BigOrangeTrain
#948
#948
BigOrangeTrain said:
So how much more strict can the background checks get?
Click to expand...
Here's a real life example. A few years ago I was out shopping and saw a friend I went to school with. Hadn't seen him for a few years. He comes up to me and asks for a ride home, I say sure no problem.

In the car I ask him what's going on. "Dude I just got out of jail." What happened? "I'm on probation and one of the conditions is that I can't own a gun. I forgot about that and bought one 3 days ago. The cops came to my work this morning and took me to jail. I just got out on bail."

Now this guy had a court order that he couldn't own a gun, but was still able to legally purchase one. For 3 days he had a gun that he had no business having. Thankfully he didn't do anything with it, but if he wanted to he could have.

Let's start there, the background checks should be stricter than what happened there.
 
#949
#949
OHvol40 said:
It depends on what information is available to establish trends and then subsequently determining causation. Formulation of all possible solutions must rest on evidence and we have a lack of information in that regard.

If a drug company comes out with a drug and the drug ends up being related to an abnormal number of fatalities, you can bet that federal agencies would research and provide grants for research to gather every bit of information available. What were the circumstances, what was the patient’s condition, what happens with similar drugs, what other drugs might be involved, etc... then a determination would be made. Do you pull the drug altogether, do you change the dosage, is it interacting with other drugs so now it’s contraindicated for patients on the drugs it interacts with, is there a certain patient population that the drug is contraindicated for? All are possibilities and all might be implemented based on relevant INFORMATION GATHERING.

I know for certain the FDA wouldn’t throw their hands up and say “oh well, the patients that are taking these drugs just need to be responsible for their own actions” and leave it at that. That line of thinking is so lazy and ineffective.
Click to expand...

How many deaths per year are the direct result of opioids? Are they banned? Everyone I know owns guns. I personally own 2 AR-15s. My brother and his wife have two. My 70 year old mother owns one. Together we have fired thousands of rounds of ammo through them. Not one single bullet has ever killed a human. And I would be willing to bet that the number of legally owned AR-15s in this country that HAVENT been used to kill far outweigh those that do. Individual accountability is the key here.

Fact is you have made an analogy that is literally apples to doughnuts and it’s worse than lazy and ineffective.
 
#950
#950
Tyler Durden said:
Here's a real life example. A few years ago I was out shopping and saw a friend I went to school with. Hadn't seen him for a few years. He comes up to me and asks for a ride home, I say sure no problem.

In the car I ask him what's going on. "Dude I just got out of jail." What happened? "I'm on probation and one of the conditions is that I can't own a gun. I forgot about that and bought one 3 days ago. The cops came to my work this morning and took me to jail. I just got out on bail."

Now this guy had a court order that he couldn't own a gun, but was still able to legally purchase one. For 3 days he had a gun that he had no business having. Thankfully he didn't do anything with it, but if he wanted to he could have.

Let's start there, the background checks should be stricter than what happened there.
Click to expand...
Great anecdote but you just proved criminals will get what they want. Had he gone thru the current system it would be flagged
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top