Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
swordfish

School Shootings

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Irishman said:

I agree, and kids at home alone during the Summer with no supervision, while a parent is at work? Left to their own  decisions; whether playing video games that are extremely violent, or hanging out, will find trouble.

I don't know that I completely agree with this particular adage.  I recall being without supervision A LOT as a kid, but I do recall realizing that even though my folks weren't there, I was "being watched."  I knew that whatever I did had ramifications and accountability when they did get home.  I often came home after school and let myself in, getting my own after-school-snack, starting my homework when I had it, getting ready for work when I had it and then getting on my bike or, when licensed, my car and getting to work.  On weekends, I'd get up at the crack of dawn and my friends and I would be gone all day "roaming."  The biggest thing that I remember/see as a difference between now and then is home accountability.  Most of the guys that I hung out with had similar parents and we all knew that, if you got in trouble with the school, the neighbor, the cops, etc., that was going to be the least of your concerns because your parents were going to be 100 times worse.  The one kid in our group whose household wasn't that way eventually ended up leaving our group and getting into all kinds of trouble with authority as early as 13 years old and then beyond.  He was one of a group of about a dozen of us.  Today, it seems to be like, in a group of a dozen kids, 6-9 of them are going to have parents that, when their kid gets into trouble are going to try to claim that their kid is blameless or that their kid shouldn't be held accountable or that it's no big deal.  Kids who grow up in that environment tend to see life as having very few consequences and also end up not recognizing levels of response in how they do things.  If they are blameless, defended, and exonerated by their parents even when they do wrong, there's nothing that pushes them to think about not doing wrong.  Seen this in many cases where parents go above and beyond to try to make it seem like damage done by their kids is nothing and going after the person whose property is damaged and claiming that they are blowing it out of proportion rather than owning up to the damage and holding their own kids accountable.  We also see, in the other forum, some of the simplest early forms of this with coaches talking about how parents are quick to attack a coach over holding his own players accountable ... the parents want to exonerate their kid's bad behavior or brush it away.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, foxbat said:

I don't know that I completely agree with this particular adage.  I recall being without supervision A LOT as a kid, but I do recall realizing that even though my folks weren't there, I was "being watched."  I knew that whatever I did had ramifications and accountability when they did get home.  I often came home after school and let myself in, getting my own after-school-snack, starting my homework when I had it, getting ready for work when I had it and then getting on my bike or, when licensed, my car and getting to work.  On weekends, I'd get up at the crack of dawn and my friends and I would be gone all day "roaming."  The biggest thing that I remember/see as a difference between now and then is home accountability.  Most of the guys that I hung out with had similar parents and we all knew that, if you got in trouble with the school, the neighbor, the cops, etc., that was going to be the least of your concerns because your parents were going to be 100 times worse.  (SF had to cut his own switch from the willow tree on occasion - willow switches were the worse) The one kid in our group whose household wasn't that way eventually ended up leaving our group and getting into all kinds of trouble with authority as early as 13 years old and then beyond.  He was one of a group of about a dozen of us.  Today, it seems to be like, in a group of a dozen kids, 6-9 of them are going to have parents that, when their kid gets into trouble are going to try to claim that their kid is blameless or that their kid shouldn't be held accountable or that it's no big deal.  Kids who grow up in that environment tend to see life as having very few consequences and also end up not recognizing levels of response in how they do things.  If they are blameless, defended, and exonerated by their parents even when they do wrong, there's nothing that pushes them to think about not doing wrong.  Seen this in many cases where parents go above and beyond to try to make it seem like damage done by their kids is nothing and going after the person whose property is damaged and claiming that they are blowing it out of proportion rather than owning up to the damage and holding their own kids accountable.  We also see, in the other forum, some of the simplest early forms of this with coaches talking about how parents are quick to attack a coach over holding his own players accountable ... the parents want to exonerate their kid's bad behavior or brush it away.   

Atta Boi Foxy - SF's nomination for Post of the month!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kids don't have parents anymore.  They have friends.  Friends who share their DNA and are responsible for them, but "Nobody puts Baby in a corner."

  • Like 1
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Coach_K said:

Some Kids don't have parents anymore.  They have friends.  Friends who share their DNA and are responsible for them, but "Nobody puts Baby in a corner."

fixed that for ya

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, foxbat said:

I don't know that I completely agree with this particular adage.  I recall being without supervision A LOT as a kid, but I do recall realizing that even though my folks weren't there, I was "being watched."  I knew that whatever I did had ramifications and accountability when they did get home.  I often came home after school and let myself in, getting my own after-school-snack, starting my homework when I had it, getting ready for work when I had it and then getting on my bike or, when licensed, my car and getting to work.  On weekends, I'd get up at the crack of dawn and my friends and I would be gone all day "roaming."  The biggest thing that I remember/see as a difference between now and then is home accountability.  Most of the guys that I hung out with had similar parents and we all knew that, if you got in trouble with the school, the neighbor, the cops, etc., that was going to be the least of your concerns because your parents were going to be 100 times worse.  The one kid in our group whose household wasn't that way eventually ended up leaving our group and getting into all kinds of trouble with authority as early as 13 years old and then beyond.  He was one of a group of about a dozen of us.  Today, it seems to be like, in a group of a dozen kids, 6-9 of them are going to have parents that, when their kid gets into trouble are going to try to claim that their kid is blameless or that their kid shouldn't be held accountable or that it's no big deal.  Kids who grow up in that environment tend to see life as having very few consequences and also end up not recognizing levels of response in how they do things.  If they are blameless, defended, and exonerated by their parents even when they do wrong, there's nothing that pushes them to think about not doing wrong.  Seen this in many cases where parents go above and beyond to try to make it seem like damage done by their kids is nothing and going after the person whose property is damaged and claiming that they are blowing it out of proportion rather than owning up to the damage and holding their own kids accountable.  We also see, in the other forum, some of the simplest early forms of this with coaches talking about how parents are quick to attack a coach over holding his own players accountable ... the parents want to exonerate their kid's bad behavior or brush it away.   

It was the same for a lot of people back then. But we cannot compare the way things were when we group up to what many kids have now. I agree though that far too often, parents will make excuses for their kids. But like TD said, there is just more of a lack of respect for human life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

With all the high taxes in most families both parents need to work full time in order to make ends meet.  What is the solution?  Full time, 365-days a year government school?   Government appointed nannies what stay at home with a couple's children?

  

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, foxbat said:

I don't know that I completely agree with this particular adage.  I recall being without supervision A LOT as a kid, but I do recall realizing that even though my folks weren't there, I was "being watched."  I knew that whatever I did had ramifications and accountability when they did get home.  I often came home after school and let myself in, getting my own after-school-snack, starting my homework when I had it, getting ready for work when I had it and then getting on my bike or, when licensed, my car and getting to work.  On weekends, I'd get up at the crack of dawn and my friends and I would be gone all day "roaming."  The biggest thing that I remember/see as a difference between now and then is home accountability.  Most of the guys that I hung out with had similar parents and we all knew that, if you got in trouble with the school, the neighbor, the cops, etc., that was going to be the least of your concerns because your parents were going to be 100 times worse.  The one kid in our group whose household wasn't that way eventually ended up leaving our group and getting into all kinds of trouble with authority as early as 13 years old and then beyond.  He was one of a group of about a dozen of us.  Today, it seems to be like, in a group of a dozen kids, 6-9 of them are going to have parents that, when their kid gets into trouble are going to try to claim that their kid is blameless or that their kid shouldn't be held accountable or that it's no big deal.  Kids who grow up in that environment tend to see life as having very few consequences and also end up not recognizing levels of response in how they do things.  If they are blameless, defended, and exonerated by their parents even when they do wrong, there's nothing that pushes them to think about not doing wrong.  Seen this in many cases where parents go above and beyond to try to make it seem like damage done by their kids is nothing and going after the person whose property is damaged and claiming that they are blowing it out of proportion rather than owning up to the damage and holding their own kids accountable.  We also see, in the other forum, some of the simplest early forms of this with coaches talking about how parents are quick to attack a coach over holding his own players accountable ... the parents want to exonerate their kid's bad behavior or brush it away.   

I agree with this as well Fox.  Maybe Irish comment's don't have to be exclusive.  Perhaps in some cases if what you said above and a lack of involvement (perhaps that's better than just monitoring) with the child.  But I agree with the accountability thing, along with the respect for authority.  My folks used to tell me that whatever punishment you get at school, you get 2X at home.  Plus we grew up on a small farm where there was always work needing done....if not, my Dad would find some.  Neighbors used to drive by in the summer early morning hours and they would see me out in our rather large garden....and laugh and ask "what did he do this time?"  Dad would yank me out of bed very early Sat morning and say "let's get out there before it gets hot".......then later in the day, forget about the heat somehow.......;)

I think both of you make some excellent points.  Your comments took me back....cutting firewood and stacking the front porch...trying to reason with my Dad...."but its July".....to which he would respond...."never can get an early enough start".......sometimes I would just wish I had the whuppin'......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
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 💩

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gonzoron said:

fixed that for ya

Good point!

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes 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.  

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...