Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

School Shootings


swordfish

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Irishman said:

I agree that parents do need to work more to pay bills. But, I was not even coming close to the nanny state thingy you drifted to. 😳🤪 The fact is that wages have not kept up with the cost of living. I have stated this in other topics. The fact that wages have not kept up has lead to the breakdown of the family unit. People who divorce will still claim that money issues are a leading cause of divorce. If an employer expects 30 hours or more out of an employee, they should compensate them for that. Now, don’t go off on another tangent about what I just said there. lol Just last year, amid a run of several years of record profits, Walmart just cut more employees time, so that now, most of their hourly employees are part time. A single person can barely survive on that. Throw in a kid or two, and that increases dramatically. Employers are doing this to save money and avoid paying benefits. There are plenty of other examples as well. Again, the ripple effect impacts those who are most vulnerable and even unstable. 

So what is the solution?  More government wage controls?   Guaranteed basic income?  Or perhaps the solution would be for "family units" to cut expenses.  "Back in the day" we didn't have $100+ family cell phone plans,   $100+ cable tv/internet bills,  $100+ fees for our kids to participate in sports,  etc.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Muda69 said:

So what is the solution?  More government wage controls?   Guaranteed basic income?  Or perhaps the solution would be for "family units" to cut expenses.  "Back in the day" we didn't have $100+ family cell phone plans,   $100+ cable tv/internet bills,  $100+ fees for our kids to participate in sports,  etc.

 

Again, the references to “back in the day” simply do not apply. While people want to say kids are the same as they were then, the fact is that so much has changed. I don’t know of a solution, but again, we should expect more from employers; especially ones that make millions or billions of dollars a year and not pay a dime in taxes, yet treat their employees like 💩

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Irishman said:

Again, the references to “back in the day” simply do not apply. While people want to say kids are the same as they were then, the fact is that so much has changed. I don’t know of a solution, but again, we should expect more from employers; especially ones that make millions or billions of dollars a year and not pay a dime in taxes, yet treat their employees like 💩

And who is forcing these individuals to work for these companies that "treat their employees like 💩. "?

What do you feel the minimum hourly wage should be in the USA?

 

 

  • Disdain 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

And who is forcing these individuals to work for these companies that "treat their employees like 💩. "?

What do you feel the minimum hourly wage should be in the USA?

 

 

At some point the mindset of “find a better job” or “you don’t have to keep working here” no longer works. There are several industries that are experiencing a shortage of workers. I don’t have a set standard of what an hourly wage should be, but I do believe an employer has a moral/ethical obligation to live up to. Because the mindset that if an employer is going to keep an employee on a 30 hour a week schedule, making as little as possible sends multiple messages that lead right to the heart of my point about the breakdown of the family unit. The first message sent is these are the only hours you are getting, so yes, I am aware you have to get a second job to pay your bills. The message also being sent is that it is completely on you as the employee to figure out your health insurance and other expenses, not just for you, but for your kids as well. The last message sent is, yes, we know that limiting your hours keeps you away from your kids while not only here, but at any other job you have to get as well. 

The fact is that is where we are at as a society. These things were not issues for us growing up or for many people back in the day. Buuuuuut, there were plenty of people back in the day who were struggling in the same situations I have described. When their kids are having kids of their own, then the problem has multiplied to the point where we are now. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are assuming an employer is just that - an "employer" - someone who exists simply to employ someone else.  

An employer is typically a business.

A business exists only by making a profit.

R - E = P (Revenue - Expenses = Profit)

FYI - An employee falls into the "E" section of that equation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, swordfish said:

You are assuming an employer is just that - an "employer" - someone who exists simply to employ someone else.  

An employer is typically a business.

A business exists only by making a profit.

R - E = P (Revenue - Expenses = Profit)

FYI - An employee falls into the "E" section of that equation.

No I am not. Yes, a business does exist to make a profit, I get it. But when companies are making record profits and still making cuts, and/or receiving huge tax breaks, whether they are local, State, or even Federal, forcing employees to go on assistance or take multiple other jobs, there is an ethical/moral disconnect. Exactly how does an employer/business earn a profit? Is the owner or CEO solely responsible for earning that profit? If an owner or leaders of a business are living a life of luxury off the backs of their employees who cannot get by day to day, there is a moral disconnect. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Irishman said:

No I am not. Yes, a business does exist to make a profit, I get it. But when companies are making record profits and still making cuts, and/or receiving huge tax breaks, whether they are local, State, or even Federal, forcing employees to go on assistance or take multiple other jobs, there is an ethical/moral disconnect. Exactly how does an employer/business earn a profit? Is the owner or CEO solely responsible for earning that profit? If an owner or leaders of a business are living a life of luxury off the backs of their employees who cannot get by day to day, there is a moral disconnect. 

Sound like the argument of "Stakeholder Capitalism" vs. "Shareholder Capitalism".

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Muda69 said:

Sound like the argument of "Stakeholder Capitalism" vs. "Shareholder Capitalism".

 

Could be...Do you prefer one over the other? 

I guess my issue with the shareholder version is how many companies have built enough wealth to insulate them from fluctuations and dips in the market? The visual I attached is somewhat disheartening. The topic of crony capitalism has come up often in other topics. Could the same type of thing happen with stakeholder capitalism? 

70714DA8-1BCF-42F5-BE50-86FC1D2DA54D.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, swordfish said:

#3 - IF either kid had a gun - it was obtained illegally.  So YES - THAT IS THE PROBLEM.  Your solution seems to be less guns, less problems.......not attempting to correct the path to the kids have guns and are using them point.

Your comment goes both ways, obviously. Let's all agree we will look at all angles of the problem, which includes getting guns out of the hands of people who ought not to have them, by reducing the overall "supply."  

Since the 1970s, there has been a huge change in gun culture in America. The majority of the people who owned guns owned then because they hunted (and/or lived in rural area where varmint killing was a necessity.) Guns were tools. Today, less than 15% of Americans hunt, and the percentage of people living in rural areas has declined substantially. Yet the number of guns per capita has doubled.  That has occurred through the concerted efforts of gun manufacturers and their lobbyists, such as the NRA, to make sell guns as (1) "necessary" for personal self-defense, and  (2) fun, cool adult "toys" -- let's play army! As so many gun owners on here have suggested in the past, the functional differences between "assault"-style rifles and other semi-automatic rifles used for hunting or varmint killing are often small. But the gun manufacturers understand that the guy living in a subdivision in Carmel has no need for a varmint-killing rifle -- and based on crime rates in Carmel, little need for a self-defense weapon, either. But he may WANT a rifle that looks sorta like the one those Special Forces dudes were carrying in that movie or video game he likes... because it just looks bad a$$. And so another gun that the owner has no real need or use for is out there, available to be messed with by a curious kid, stolen by a burglar and re-sold, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

Your comment goes both ways, obviously. Let's all agree we will look at all angles of the problem, which includes getting guns out of the hands of people who ought not to have them, by reducing the overall "supply."  

Since the 1970s, there has been a huge change in gun culture in America. The majority of the people who owned guns owned then because they hunted (and/or lived in rural area where varmint killing was a necessity.) Guns were tools. Today, less than 15% of Americans hunt, and the percentage of people living in rural areas has declined substantially. Yet the number of guns per capita has doubled.  That has occurred through the concerted efforts of gun manufacturers and their lobbyists, such as the NRA, to make sell guns as (1) "necessary" for personal self-defense, and  (2) fun, cool adult "toys" -- let's play army! As so many gun owners on here have suggested in the past, the functional differences between "assault"-style rifles and other semi-automatic rifles used for hunting or varmint killing are often small. But the gun manufacturers understand that the guy living in a subdivision in Carmel has no need for a varmint-killing rifle -- and based on crime rates in Carmel, little need for a self-defense weapon, either. But he may WANT a rifle that looks sorta like the one those Special Forces dudes were carrying in that movie or video game he likes... because it just looks bad a$$. And so another gun that the owner has no real need or use for is out there, available to be messed with by a curious kid, stolen by a burglar and re-sold, etc. 

There's a company here in town that on their radio ads tout the need that everyone should own at least four guns:

  • Handgun for personal defense
  • Shotgun for home defense
  • A rifle to put food on the table
  • One for defense of civil liberties ... I don't recall the exact wording, but it was kind of a dance around in case the government gets too invasive

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

Your comment goes both ways, obviously. Let's all agree we will look at all angles of the problem, which includes getting guns out of the hands of people who ought not to have them, by reducing the overall "supply."  

Since the 1970s, there has been a huge change in gun culture in America. The majority of the people who owned guns owned then because they hunted (and/or lived in rural area where varmint killing was a necessity.) Guns were tools. Today, less than 15% of Americans hunt, and the percentage of people living in rural areas has declined substantially. Yet the number of guns per capita has doubled.  That has occurred through the concerted efforts of gun manufacturers and their lobbyists, such as the NRA, to make sell guns as (1) "necessary" for personal self-defense, and  (2) fun, cool adult "toys" -- let's play army! As so many gun owners on here have suggested in the past, the functional differences between "assault"-style rifles and other semi-automatic rifles used for hunting or varmint killing are often small. But the gun manufacturers understand that the guy living in a subdivision in Carmel has no need for a varmint-killing rifle -- and based on crime rates in Carmel, little need for a self-defense weapon, either. But he may WANT a rifle that looks sorta like the one those Special Forces dudes were carrying in that movie or video game he likes... because it just looks bad a$$. And so another gun that the owner has no real need or use for is out there, available to be messed with by a curious kid, stolen by a burglar and re-sold, etc. 

Not going to argue stats, don't have time or desire, however - You are headed in the correct direction W - RESPONSIBLE gun ownership is a very good direction to take with gun owners.  Many DO like to possess one, but don't have the means or time to learn proper usage, then (worse) don't have the means or desire to purchase or utilize a proper storage space.  (gun safe)  But getting someone (like the characters in your examples) driven by the ego you described to voluntarily give up those weapons will be difficult. 

FYI -  the weapons used in the Colorado shooting were 3 handguns (illegal for anyone under 21 to possess) and a rifle (not actually used, but recovered from a vehicle - and NOT a "bad a$$" gun).  All were stolen from the house of one of the shooters after "smashing into the locked gun cabinet" https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/colorado-school-shooters-stole-guns-from-parents  Which tells SF (assuming) the "gun cabinet" had a glass door meant to display them, instead of keeping the weapons in a gun safe out of site and away from easy access.

Edited by swordfish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Wabash82 said:

Your comment goes both ways, obviously. Let's all agree we will look at all angles of the problem, which includes getting guns out of the hands of people who ought not to have them, by reducing the overall "supply."  

Since the 1970s, there has been a huge change in gun culture in America. The majority of the people who owned guns owned then because they hunted (and/or lived in rural area where varmint killing was a necessity.) Guns were tools. Today, less than 15% of Americans hunt, and the percentage of people living in rural areas has declined substantially. Yet the number of guns per capita has doubled.  That has occurred through the concerted efforts of gun manufacturers and their lobbyists, such as the NRA, to make sell guns as (1) "necessary" for personal self-defense, and  (2) fun, cool adult "toys" -- let's play army! As so many gun owners on here have suggested in the past, the functional differences between "assault"-style rifles and other semi-automatic rifles used for hunting or varmint killing are often small. But the gun manufacturers understand that the guy living in a subdivision in Carmel has no need for a varmint-killing rifle -- and based on crime rates in Carmel, little need for a self-defense weapon, either. But he may WANT a rifle that looks sorta like the one those Special Forces dudes were carrying in that movie or video game he likes... because it just looks bad a$$. And so another gun that the owner has no real need or use for is out there, available to be messed with by a curious kid, stolen by a burglar and re-sold, etc. 

US manufacturers working to increase sales and gain market share, this is outrageous, when did this start happening?

Alas we get to the crux of the matter, who gets to decide an individual's needs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

1=Apples

2=Oranges

3=Ridiculous

Deep response. 

Why are #1 and #2 apples and oranges? Explain the salient difference you see. Obviously, we don't have your prior link to look at, so I don't know how you defined "mass shooting" or whatever standard you used (amount of media attention they got?) to select the pool of shootings from which you then selected your examples where there were psychiatric issues or drugs.  But I don't see why a shooting by some  troubled kid who self-medicates with dope (because he doesn't have any adults in his life who care enough, or have the resources, to want to take him to a doctor) is "oranges", while shooting by some troubled kid who medicates with prescription drugs because he has parents who cared enough, or had the resources, to take him to a doctor, is apples.  The difference is that no one cares to consider the mental health of the kid in the first situation. 

I personally think that the mental health thing is overblown. The U.S. homicide rate today (well, as of 2017, last year of full stats) is close to half of what it was in 1974 9.4/100,000 in 1974, 5.3/100,000 in 2017). There is no logical reason to assume that some dramatic increase in mental health issues has arisen in the intervening 40 years that somehow makes those suffering from it LESS likely to kill people UNLESS they are guaranteed to be able to kill lots of people at one time. 

There is a principle in philosophy and science called Ockham's Razor, which suggests that, when given two competing explanations for something, choosing the simpler one over a more complicated one makes sense.  The statistical evidence here related to murder rates, mass shootings, and the numbers and types of guns in private hands in America now,  versus 40 years ago, suggests that the simple explanation here is that there are actually fewer murderers among us today than 40 years ago, but murders looking to kill lots of people are able to accomplish that goal easier today compared to 40 years ago because of the much readier access to semi-automatic guns. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

I know what your point was, and I am saying its deeper than your point.

Automatic and semi-automatic weapons were available in the 1970's and prior.  A law went on the books in 1934 requiring automatic weapons to be registered with the fed govt.  Since 1986, gunmakers have been banned from making automatic weapons for the civilian market.  Auto's and SA's have been around for a long, long time.  Surplus weapons following WWII were sold to the public from the gov't.  

Now, to your point about weapons with smaller ammo capacities....both Columbine and VA Tech (most casualties for a US school shooting) did not involve SA weapons.  I personally know farming families that own AR's for varmit/animal control that have never considered pointing it at another human being.  Self-defense isn't the only reason to own one.

In the 1970's and early 80's, I could easily get my hands on guns.....both from my home and also from other homes if I wanted to inflict damage.  Not sure I align at all with your statement people could not easily get their hands on guns.  I don't remember many restrictions back in those days.

BTW, I own semi-automatic shotguns....definitely not easy to hunt waterfowl, upland birds, etc. without them.  Holds five 2 3/4" shells with the plug removed.  I can easily order extensions via the internet and triple that capacity.  Can you image what a shotgun can do in tighter spaces?  So, its not just about an AR.  

I just don't buy its all about the tool, and even if we want to stop there, prohibition doesn't seem to have a solid history in the US.  Seems to create markets.

I didn't reference (fully) automatic weapons in my prior post, so I am not sure why you threw that "factoid" in. And I am aware that semi-automatic weapons existed in the 1970s and ling prior. My  contentions were that the gun ownership per capita has doubled since the 1970s, and the percentage of the firearms in private hands that are semi-automatic weapons is much higher today than it was in 1974. Unless I missed something, I don't see anything in your post that contradicts those assertions. 

As for anecdotal experience at your high school, I am sure there are also (probably lots of) high schools today where kids have guns in their cars but no one has brought one to shoot someone. An individual example (or a handful of them) are not meaningful when trying to identify broad causal factors. Indeed, the idea that human life is less valued today than it was when you were  in high school in the 1980s is belied by the fact that the overall U.S. murder rate was much higher back then.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

US manufacturers working to increase sales and gain market share, this is outrageous, when did this start happening?

Alas we get to the crux of the matter, who gets to decide an individual's needs?

Yep, just like the  drug manufacturers who worked to increase sales and build market share for their opiod products by misrepresenting the medical evidence re the benefits of pain management on healing, or the level of addictiveness of their products. Unfortunately for them, they were not smart enough to pay the right people to get themselves immunized from liability for the damage their products have caused as a result, like the gun manufacturers have done. 

Look, we (collectively this forum) have been down this same path enough times before. The conversation always starts with the "guns are just a tool" argument.  Then someone will make the blindingly obvious point that the manufacturers of any other consumer market tool that 1) injured and killed many people each year, yet 2) its actual utility among the people who owned it was consistently decreasing (because of the decline in hunting, less rural population, lower violent ctime rates, etc.) would have been sued out of existence a long time ago.

Then, suddenly, the argument becomes about "liberty" -- who are you to tell me what I want or need?

To which someone will make the again obvious point, from Poly Sci 101, that whenever humans form these things called societies, there inherently will arise conflicts between the needs, wants and desires of some individuals and the needs, wants and desires of others in that society, and that human societies have come up with lots of different ways in the course of history to resolve those conflicts, ranging from the guy with the biggest club decides, to the King appointed by God gets to decide, to hey, let's all vote on it. But that whatever method is chosen, the decision to live in society with other humans means that, one way or another, you ability to always get what you need or want is subject to limits because the "decider" in your society is not always you. 

And so then the conversation goes to, "Yeah but this is not just my "want". It is my right. Ever heard of the 2nd Amendment, pal?

And then we all become Constitutional experts and argue about what the 2nd Amendment means....

And then we get tired and talk about the  latest Trump tweet until the next time a bunch of kids get shot up....

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wabash82 said:

I didn't reference (fully) automatic weapons in my prior post, so I am not sure why you threw that "factoid" in. And I am aware that semi-automatic weapons existed in the 1970s and ling prior. My  contentions were that the gun ownership per capita has doubled since the 1970s, and the percentage of the firearms in private hands that are semi-automatic weapons is much higher today than it was in 1974. Unless I missed something, I don't see anything in your post that contradicts those assertions. 

As for anecdotal experience at your high school, I am sure there are also (probably lots of) high schools today where kids have guns in their cars but no one has brought one to shoot someone. An individual example (or a handful of them) are not meaningful when trying to identify broad causal factors. Indeed, the idea that human life is less valued today than it was when you were  in high school in the 1980s is belied by the fact that the overall U.S. murder rate was much higher back then.  

I haven't had a chance to look at stats yet, but anecdotally I wonder if the that issue of availability also comes into play.  I recall growing up in the 70s in Texas where the idea of guns in pickup trucks was a norm, but I also recall the preponderance of semi-auto or even large caliber carry wasn't as widespread.  Most guys that had their "guns in their racks" that were carrying .22s.  There were some guys that had hunting rifles, but they were in the trucks, not year round, but only during the season.  That is, .30-06 and .30-30s didn't show up in trucks until after deer season opened and shotguns didn't show up until duck/turkey season opened.  Similarly, as kids were introduced to firepower beyond pellet/BB guns, it seemed to me that single-shot was the preponderance of gun types.  Most of my friends that had gotten their first "gunpowder" arms tended to end up with single shot or bolt-action .22 or single-shot or double-barrel shotguns.  Even in the higher calibers, I'd say the mix of kids at my high school that had higher caliber rifles, the vast majority were bolt action or single-shot/single-load.  I'm pretty sure that semi-auto was available in decent numbers, but it seemed that, even among enthusiasts that there was a much more measured progression/use.  Single-shot was kind of an automatic default in terms of consideration for a first gun.  Again, I haven't looked at stats, but I get the feeling that semi-auto is a default and calibers are considered the larger the better ... especially amongst the general public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

Because SA and even automatic weapons have been around for a long, long time.  Its a much more complex issue than just "per volume".  If we want to speak volume, then why isn't this happening in Switzerland?  I am not taking the time to try and determine how much SA weapons growth has occurred since 1970.  I'll take your word for it.  But I don't align this is just about SA weapons.  Can unfortunately reference you many mass shootings that didn't involve a SA rifle.  As I referenced prior, it doesn't take an AR in more confined quarters to take multiple lives.  That has been proven time and time again.

Anecdotal experience.....you need to get in the rural world a little more.  Murder rates lower today...ok...then why are having this discussion?....its because individuals, that are typically not considered as criminals with a very different motive, snapping and taking lives.  So again, another apple to orange comparison.

Approx 243,000 M1 carbines were sold following WWII.  How many of those were used for mass shootings?  Its not just an instrument issue WB....far from it.

 "Individuals, that are typically not considered as criminals with a very different motive, snapping and taking lives."

That's all just supposition and your own unsupported conclusions.  

We've all gone over this same ground before in prior threads. People have trotted out examples of school shootings that occurred pre-Columbine, and mass shootings going back to the 19th century.  Again, the murder rate was way higher 40 years ago -- so are you saying there were fewer nut cases but more "typical" criminals (whatever that means) roaming among the population back in the 1970s? 

It seems to me that the numbers are the numbers, and they tell a pretty straightforward story.  The murder rate is much lower than 40 years ago. But we more mass shootings than 40 years ago. And we have many, many more guns in the hands of more people, and the "average" guns on the streets today is a semi-automatic weapon.  Those facts seem to lead very logically to a conclusion that we don't have more murderous types among us than we used to, we actually have fewer, but those fewer murderous types these days typically has much better "tools" with which to work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wabash82 said:

Yep, just like the  drug manufacturers who worked to increase sales and build market share for their opiod products by misrepresenting the medical evidence re the benefits of pain management on healing, or the level of addictiveness of their products. Unfortunately for them, they were not smart enough to pay the right people to get themselves immunized from liability for the damage their products have caused as a result, like the gun manufacturers have done. 

Look, we (collectively this forum) have been down this same path enough times before. The conversation always starts with the "guns are just a tool" argument.  Then someone will make the blindingly obvious point that the manufacturers of any other consumer market tool that 1) injured and killed many people each year, yet 2) its actual utility among the people who owned it was consistently decreasing (because of the decline in hunting, less rural population, lower violent ctime rates, etc.) would have been sued out of existence a long time ago.

Then, suddenly, the argument becomes about "liberty" -- who are you to tell me what I want or need?

To which someone will make the again obvious point, from Poly Sci 101, that whenever humans form these things called societies, there inherently will arise conflicts between the needs, wants and desires of some individuals and the needs, wants and desires of others in that society, and that human societies have come up with lots of different ways in the course of history to resolve those conflicts, ranging from the guy with the biggest club decides, to the King appointed by God gets to decide, to hey, let's all vote on it. But that whatever method is chosen, the decision to live in society with other humans means that, one way or another, you ability to always get what you need or want is subject to limits because the "decider" in your society is not always you. 

And so then the conversation goes to, "Yeah but this is not just my "want". It is my right. Ever heard of the 2nd Amendment, pal?

And then we all become Constitutional experts and argue about what the 2nd Amendment means....

And then we get tired and talk about the  latest Trump tweet until the next time a bunch of kids get shot up....

Using your Occam's Razor analogy, isn't there a paradox? Shouldn't murders as a whole have risen in proportion to the number of guns in circulation?

The gun manufacturers have never tried to hoodwink the market there are anything more than what they are. I'm pretty sure you won't find any studies that indicate how healthy it is to be on the business end of a firearm.  

I'll grant you we've been down this path before and it's pretty much fruitless. I have always maintained that to live in a truly free society there are inherent risks involved and I stand by that. Statistically there is still a far greater chance I'll be killed by a driver illegally driving drunk going home tonight, than I have of being shot by a kid illegally possessing a firearm.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wabash82 said:

Deep response. 

Why are #1 and #2 apples and oranges? Explain the salient difference you see. Obviously, we don't have your prior link to look at, so I don't know how you defined "mass shooting" or whatever standard you used (amount of media attention they got?) to select the pool of shootings from which you then selected your examples where there were psychiatric issues or drugs.  But I don't see why a shooting by some  troubled kid who self-medicates with dope (because he doesn't have any adults in his life who care enough, or have the resources, to want to take him to a doctor) is "oranges", while shooting by some troubled kid who medicates with prescription drugs because he has parents who cared enough, or had the resources, to take him to a doctor, is apples.  The difference is that no one cares to consider the mental health of the kid in the first situation. 

I personally think that the mental health thing is overblown. The U.S. homicide rate today (well, as of 2017, last year of full stats) is close to half of what it was in 1974 9.4/100,000 in 1974, 5.3/100,000 in 2017). There is no logical reason to assume that some dramatic increase in mental health issues has arisen in the intervening 40 years that somehow makes those suffering from it LESS likely to kill people UNLESS they are guaranteed to be able to kill lots of people at one time. 

There is a principle in philosophy and science called Ockham's Razor, which suggests that, when given two competing explanations for something, choosing the simpler one over a more complicated one makes sense.  The statistical evidence here related to murder rates, mass shootings, and the numbers and types of guns in private hands in America now,  versus 40 years ago, suggests that the simple explanation here is that there are actually fewer murderers among us today than 40 years ago, but murders looking to kill lots of people are able to accomplish that goal easier today compared to 40 years ago because of the much readier access to semi-automatic guns. 

 

Yeah but we are talking about gun violence, not razor violence........

Oh, come on, I had to........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only if you assume the percentage of murderers in the population did not decrease, but I am not making that assumption.  To the contrary, there seems pretty strong evidence from looking at the decline in violent crime statistics in general, not just for murder, that U.S. society is becoming more and more peaceful. 

The phenomenon we are seeing is not that violent behavior is increasing, but that as it gets rarer, it sometimes gets more intense.  Many fewer incidents of violence in the schools, workplaces, or the streets, but when they do happen, they are often lethal.  

Your narrow limitation to "a kid illegally possessing a gun" probably makes your statement correct, but overall it is not: in 2017, there were 15,000 shooting deaths after excluding suicides, while there were about 10,000 deaths in drunk driving incidents.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Digesting what you are saying W.  it appears your data is supporting the idea that more guns=more violence. 

While I won't flat-out disagree, here's my take (FWIW).  I remember 35-40 years ago when there were hunting rifles (SA and yes bolt-action) on gun racks in about every pick-up in Northern Indiana school parking lots (SF didn't have a pick-up, sadly) but with 0 school shootings.  Handguns were illegal to purchase back then for HS age kids as well.  The difference in the weaponry yesterday compared with today?  The same SA rifle is now black and looks like a military style assault rifle.  Still has the same action though.  So I am not agreeing or disagreeing, just saying that we knew how and when to use a weapon back then.  So is it bad parenting, violent video games, violent TV, rap music, metal music or too many guns available?  

I tend to follow the thinking that if one would want to target somebody or a group, the odds of success would be greater in a "gun-free" zone.  But - if one would want to target someone for killing - SF thinks there is a mental problem somewhere to begin with........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like Switzerland's in the news on gun control ...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/switzerland-votes-strengthen-gun-control-141152587.html

FTA:

Swiss voters on Sunday approved a measure to tighten the Alpine nation's gun laws, bringing the country in line with many of its European partners despite the objections of local gun owners, Swiss media reported, citing official results.

Switzerland's public broadcaster said more than 63% of voters nationwide agreed to align with European Union firearms rules adopted two years ago after deadly attacks in France, Belgium, Germany and Britain.

The vote Sunday was part of Switzerland's regular referendums that give citizens a direct say in policymaking. It had stoked passions in a country with long, proud traditions of gun ownership and sport and target shooting. Switzerland, unlike many other European nations, allows veterans of its obligatory military service for men to take home their service weapons after tours of duty.

The Swiss proposal, among other things, requires regular training on the use of firearms, special waivers to own some semi-automatic weapons and serial number tracking system for key parts of some guns. Gun owners would have to register any weapons not already registered within three years, and keep a registry of their gun collections.

Edited by foxbat
Added link for full article
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...