Gun Control III: the Hedge Knight Rises.

[Rippounet]

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 

Ah, I see. We are actually in perfect agreement, I missed one of your posts and reacted too fast to another. Apologies.

[Rippounet]

A few useful links...

- This meta-study on 130 studies in 10 different countries on the impact of gun control:
https://academic.oup.com/epirev/article/38/1/140/2754868

- And two studies on the correlation between the number of guns and the number of homicides (behind a paywall, sorry):
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409?journalCode=ajph&
https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/elsevier/state-level-homicide-victimization-rates-in-the-us-in-relation-to-TNMKd0qUVn

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

38 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

A few useful links...

- This meta-study on 130 studies in 10 different countries on the impact of gun control:
https://academic.oup.com/epirev/article/38/1/140/2754868

- And two studies on the correlation between the number of guns and the number of homicides (behind a paywall, sorry):
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409?journalCode=ajph&
https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/elsevier/state-level-homicide-victimization-rates-in-the-us-in-relation-to-TNMKd0qUVn

Sadly I don't think any study or group of studies, no matter how well down they are, will change the minds of Americans who are dug in on "no new laws and regulations." It's a gut position, so no level of intellectualism will change it.

[Dr. Pepper]

7 hours ago, Kalbear said:

The neighbor shooter did, in fact, hit him - twice. Once in the leg and once in the torso. In addition to that, the murderer called his father as he was driving away. 

I also think that it's preposterous to think that the shooter's plan was to miss his exit and roll his truck in a ditch, and then shoot himself. 

Again, facts matter, even when said facts do not support your narrative.

Sure, maybe he didn't intend to drive into a ditch.  BUT HE HAD ALREADY COMPLETED HIS CHURCH SHOOTING WHERE HE KILLED DOZENS AND WOUNDED MANY MORE.  He had left the church.  The facts are that the killing had already occurred when the neighbor came out shooting.  

I'm completely baffled why people are trying to argue that someone stopped the shooter when he'd already gone on his murder spree.  This is disgusting.

7 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Normally I would side with Week, Dr. Pepper and Rippounet, but in this particular instance I believe Kalbear is correct. These two vigilantes blew up the second half of this guys plan.

 Specifically to Rippounet, it's not reasonable to expect that a vigilante is going to be able to prevent the initial attack. You'd have to have armed security for that expectation to even approach rationality. 

And what was the second half of this guys plan?  These mass shootings tend to lead to the shooter committing suicide.  

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Sure, maybe he didn't intend to drive into a ditch.  BUT HE HAD ALREADY COMPLETED HIS CHURCH SHOOTING WHERE HE KILLED DOZENS AND WOUNDED MANY MORE.  He had left the church.  The facts are that the killing had already occurred when the neighbor came out shooting.  

I'm completely baffled why people are trying to argue that someone stopped the shooter when he'd already gone on his murder spree.  This is disgusting.

But it's accurate. The shooter was stopped from doing more damage by two good samaritans. Both things can be true - that he completed his massacre of the church, killed 26 people and used almost 400 rounds to do so - AND he was stopped from killing more. 

Just like the Las Vegas shooter did massive harm, but was stopped from doing more harm by the police presence at his room only a few minutes after the shooting started. Given that in his case he had a plan to go to other festivals and do this, had planned evacuation routes and the like, it seems ludicrous to suggest that the police did not stop him from doing more damage.

What's clear to me is that good samaritans with guns did stop this guy from killing more. What's also clear is that they were not remotely sufficient to stop him, and if the argument is that everyone should have guns to stop things like this was accurate this is a major blow towards it. Whereas we know for certain that background checks that are implemented and actually followed WOULD HAVE STOPPED THIS. 

3 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

And what was the second half of this guys plan?  These mass shootings tend to lead to the shooter committing suicide.  

The background of the guy and his prior information suggests that he thought the mother-in-law would be at church and was the main target; it's a reasonable assumption to take that he was going after her next. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

15 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Sure, maybe he didn't intend to drive into a ditch.  BUT HE HAD ALREADY COMPLETED HIS CHURCH SHOOTING WHERE HE KILLED DOZENS AND WOUNDED MANY MORE.  He had left the church.  The facts are that the killing had already occurred when the neighbor came out shooting.  

I'm completely baffled why people are trying to argue that someone stopped the shooter when he'd already gone on his murder spree.  This is disgusting.

And what was the second half of this guys plan?  These mass shootings tend to lead to the shooter committing suicide.  

You got a crystal ball? A time machine? Cause that's pretty much the only way you can stop him once he's decided his course. Outside of preventing him from having this sort of weapon in the first place, which is what was supposed to happen given his criminal history.

Who knows what his next step would've been. He apparently had quite a bit of hatred for his wife, who lives in that town and he had a carload of firearms and ammo. I think you can probably do the math. His mother-in-law regularly attended that church, and his wife would often drop her off and pick her up. And he showed up right as church was letting out.

[Dr. Pepper]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

But it's accurate. The shooter was stopped from doing more damage by two good samaritans. Both things can be true - that he completed his massacre of the church, killed 26 people and used almost 400 rounds to do so - AND he was stopped from killing more. 

Just like the Las Vegas shooter did massive harm, but was stopped from doing more harm by the police presence at his room only a few minutes after the shooting started. Given that in his case he had a plan to go to other festivals and do this, had planned evacuation routes and the like, it seems ludicrous to suggest that the police did not stop him from doing more damage.

What's clear to me is that good samaritans with guns did stop this guy from killing more. What's also clear is that they were not remotely sufficient to stop him, and if the argument is that everyone should have guns to stop things like this was accurate this is a major blow towards it. Whereas we know for certain that background checks that are implemented and actually followed WOULD HAVE STOPPED THIS. 

The background of the guy and his prior information suggests that he thought the mother-in-law would be at church and was the main target; it's a reasonable assumption to take that he was going after her next. 

This position makes me feel literally sick.  

No, Vegas shooter had stopped shooting when police showed up.  He'd already mowed down a crowd and then shot himself.  This argument that more guns help stop shootings is as dumb and offensive as saying that a gun that suicided the vegas murderer is what was needed to stop the killing.  Ugh, vomit.

But YES to the background checks and effective gun control being what was needed.  Perhaps a better justice system and maybe mental health care.  But seems pretty clear that no guns and this wouldn't have happened at all.  

 

[Dr. Pepper]

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

You got a crystal ball? A time machine? Cause that's pretty much the only way you can stop him once he's decided his course. Outside of course preventing him from having this sort of weapon in the first place, which is what was supposed to happen given his criminal history.

Who knows what his next step would've been. He apparently had quite a bit of hatred for his wife, who lives in that town and he had a carload of firearms and ammo. I think you can probably do the math. His mother-in-law regularly attended that church, and his wife would often drop her off and pick her up. And he showed up right as church was letting out.

So you're saying you have no idea and claim one would need a crystal ball but then also saying you have a good idea.  Figures.

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Dr. Pepper said:

So you're saying you have no idea and claim one would need a crystal ball but then also saying you have a good idea.  Figures.

I'm not pretending to know what he would have done next, are you? After killing 26 people in cold blood would you rather he be left to his own devices or shot down himself?

[Week]

On 11/6/2017 at 0:02 PM, Week said:

Let's not break our arms jerking off the vigilantes here -- that's not a tenable solution to any problem.

[Dr. Pepper]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I'm not pretending to know what he would have done next, are you? After killing 26 people in cold blood would you rather he be left to his own devices or shot down himself?

You claimed that these vigilantes stopped the second half of his plan.  You have no idea what it was.  

But at least you recognize that these men did nothing to prevent the murder of dozens.  Glad we can reach agreement there. 

[Kalbear]

14 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

This position makes me feel literally sick. 

Sorry; you might want to see a doctor.

14 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

No, Vegas shooter had stopped shooting when police showed up.  He'd already mowed down a crowd and then shot himself.  This argument that more guns help stop shootings is as dumb and offensive as saying that a gun that suicided the vegas murderer is what was needed to stop the killing.  Ugh, vomit.

The facts are that police were outside his room about 7-10 minutes after shooting started, and the suicide happened sometime after that. The murderer did not stop shooting until he detected police outside his door, and did not kill himself until a bit after that. 

Are you upset about that too? Does that make you sick? Because it is the case that police did end up stopping that shooting, though they were not sufficient to stop all the murders. Same thing in this case in Texas.

14 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

But YES to the background checks and effective gun control being what was needed.  Perhaps a better justice system and maybe mental health care.  But seems pretty clear that no guns and this wouldn't have happened at all.  

Yes, absolutely yes, 100% yes. Legal access to guns is what enabled the mass shooting in Vegas and in Texas. Without that, it is unclear how much damage these guys could have done or how undetected they would have been. Having a watch and flag for someone with domestic violence charges would also have caught them, and the Pulse nightclub, and so many others.

I can say all that and agree with you entirely. I can also recognize that in this case (and almost no others), good samaritans with guns were able to make the damage less than it could have been. You can recognize this AND be 100% for gun control - in fact, it's a really good reason to be in favor of more gun control, because this was about the best case scenario for 'good guy with a gun' and it STILL resulted in 26 deaths and 20 more injuries. If that's the best outcome, how bad is that argument?

[Dr. Pepper]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 

Are you upset about that too? Does that make you sick? 

No, I'm specifically upset and sickened by your seemingly new position that good guys with guns are needed to stop mass shootings...even though the mass shooting had already happened.  I expect these sorts of arguments by the likes of FNR, but not you.  

Probably shouldn't have entered the gun thread today if I wanted to maintain any sense of optimism.  Things are always upside down in these sorts of threads.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

No, I'm specifically upset and sickened by your seemingly new position that good guys with guns are needed to stop mass shootings...even though the mass shooting had already happened.  I expect these sorts of arguments by the likes of FNR, but not you.  

We are not saying that. The whole "an armed society is a polite society" thing is bullshit in my opinion. The answer to mass shootings is MOAR GUNS! is not my position. In this particular case, a vigilante with a gun stopped a murderer. Whether that fact fits your narrative or not is not relevant. 

[IamMe90]

35 minutes ago, Week said:

No one here is fucking "jerking off" vigilantes - can any of you actually read beyond those righteously-tinted glasses? A couple people are acknowledging a very basic set of facts about shit that actually happened, while maintaining  an ethically consistent pro-gun control  point of view. Man. 

[Dr. Pepper]

12 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

No one here is fucking "jerking off" vigilantes - can any of you actually read beyond those righteously-tinted glasses? A couple people are acknowledging a very basic set of facts about shit that actually happened, while maintaining  an ethically consistent pro-gun control  point of view. Man. 

Not really.  We're debating against someone who has bizarrely started arguing that the good thing about an armed citizenry is to stop mass killings.  He's also come out in favor of people having access to high powered military murder equipment.  He spent several posts utilizing the pro-gun/murder language of "good guys with guns". 

I am half convinced this poster's account has been hacked because his position is so startling.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

God forbid someone's beliefs don't line up in perfect formation with the generally held beliefs of their commonly accepted ideology. Or that one is capable of changing their position to some degree in the face of further information or debate. 

You're either a Stormtrooper or a Rebel, there is no middle position.

[IamMe90]

32 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Not really.  We're debating against someone who has bizarrely started arguing that the good thing about an armed citizenry is to stop mass killings.  He's also come out in favor of people having access to high powered military murder equipment.  He spent several posts utilizing the pro-gun/murder language of "good guys with guns". 

I am half convinced this poster's account has been hacked because his position is so startling.  

He didn't say any of that, and it's evident that your reading comprehension is severely impaired by your own inability to stop getting so wrapped up in self righteousness over anything that doesn't exactly fit with the extremely narrow and rigid confines of what you deem to be acceptable. 

Like, it's amazing. You just imputed a bunch of bunch of odious shit absolutely no one said to people because... a couple said something other than exactly what you wanted to hear, I guess. 

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Not really.  We're debating against someone who has bizarrely started arguing that the good thing about an armed citizenry is to stop mass killings.  He spent several posts utilizing the pro-gun/murder language of "good guys with guns". 

I am half convinced this poster's account has been hacked because his position is so startling.  

One of the very few things that is remotely good about an armed citizenry is that when a mass shooting occurs in said armed citizenry (as it will ALWAYS do), it is more likely that someone with a gun will be around to make things slightly better. 

That's it. It absolutely was a 'good guy with a gun'. This shows precisely how incredibly limited this scenario is, and how utterly useless the argument is. If your best argument is that 'only 26 people were murdered' in about the most ideal case you can imagine (two trained, good samaritans happen to have their gun and ammo with them and respond within a minute), that should show everyone the relative impotence of this argument. 

Quote

He's also come out in favor of people having access to high powered military murder equipment. 

I'm also in favor of the citizens having access to high-powered military equipment, though not by individual control or ownership; if the US is going to be serious about wanting to fight tyranny of domestic and foreign enemies, the US must have actually trained citizenry in military weaponry that is more modern than hunting rifles and semiauto pistols. If we're serious, we should adopt a model like Switzerland has - which requires everyone to learn how to use military weapons but stores all ammunition and major weapons in a publicly-controlled decentralized armory. That would be a sane interpretation of the 2nd amendment that is also going with other countries' point of view (like Switzerland or Israel) where they need every citizen to be ready to fight, and trains them appropriately - but also does not allow everyone just to carry around weaponry whenever they choose.

But the notion of simply allowing people guns - even regulated ones, with background checks - does nothing good. It doesn't do well on the 2nd amendment rights whatsoever; the normal people have zero chance against military, foreign or domestic, and even Red Dawn didn't pretend to use hunting rifles for very long against the Russkies. It doesn't do well to stop gun violence as a rule, as study after study has shown that simply having a gun makes it far more likely that it'll be used, and used badly. It might help with shooting rampages, save that it also is the enabler of shooting rampages.

So, @Dr. Pepper, you have a couple options on the table: you can repeal the 2nd amendment completely and have a country with a culture of relative saneness towards guns. This has about zero chance of actually happening in the US. You can pass laws that likely do not limit things enough or (if they do) are unconstitutional, or (as this shooting shows) only work as well as people do in enforcing it. Or you can embrace the gun culture of the US and assume that people want to have guns and then train them, make gun safety something to applaud, gun carelessness something to mock openly and ostracize, and train people how to use guns and other weapons in the off chance that they need to overthrow a despot. 

[Darth Richard II]

Well I missed something here.

On a humanity is doomed note, someone just complained to me that a domestic violence conviction means you can;t buy a gun, and that America is the most cuked nation on earth.