The science is apparently settled but i guess I'm stuck in that thin frothy film at the top. It's pretty rambunctious here. We're open to new ideas and not just "settled science." Who knew that science was a fixed object?

I know the zeitqeist is against me as the Site Owner is the leading proponent. He's either brave enough to offer this platform for disagreement, or he's just collecting posts on who is first in the line for the right thinking re-education camps.

Still thinking how awful it would be to find out your child is not coming home today. How fucking awful.

/r

Congrats. My point is there should be limits. You will always have people who can do things with less. Again, I'm not advocating we confiscate weapons, just their ability to kill many fast, by the average American. You are obviously above average. ;-)

High suicide rates don't correlate with high suicide rates everywhere. As I posted earlier, Japan has a much higher suicide rate than the US, and yet they have very few guns in that society.

Congrats. My point is there should be limits. You will always have people who can do things with less. Again, I'm not advocating we confiscate weapons, just their ability to kill many fast, by the average American. You are obviously above average. ;-)

Wow, where'd that come from? I'm talking about your inability to understand stats and correlation, and you go off on that?

Here's the thing: let's say that 100% of mass shooters is mentally ill. That says nothing about the likelihood of a mentally ill person becoming a mass shooter.

Everything on that list, except gun deaths, is actively looking for solutions to prevent them.

I mean weapons that can quickly shoot, for example, 30 rounds, not pistols with what, 8 shots. Yes, police empty their guns on suspects but it is not typical, from what I have seen, where they are constantly reloading and shooting again.

Also, I've noticed that as threads here in the LR lengthen, more people start hurling personal insults at each other. So far no Godwin's Law violations, though. So far. ;-)

A large part of that is because, as the thread grows, there are multiple "conversations" between two or more posters. Some jackinate will see one post in that conversation and try to call out the poster, having not bothered to even attempt to follow the conversation, thus taking the single post of context. Most often, that jackinate takes the single post out of context and attempts to challenge a point made, again, out of context. When that occurs, the poopy-head needs to be called out for the jackinate he is.

A large part of that is because, as the thread grows, there are multiple "conversations" between two or more posters. Some jackinate will see one post in that conversation and try to call out the poster, having not bothered to even attempt to follow the conversation, thus taking the single post of context. Most often, that jackinate takes the single post out of context and attempts to challenge a point made, again, out of context. When that occurs, the poopy-head needs to be called out for the jackinate he is.

sorry.....i'll go back to lurking now.....sorry....(slinks away)....

Fine but I don't agree with the need for that type of weapon. It's my personal opinion and not something I'm forcing on anyone. However, if our government wanted to pass a law preventing that type of gun, I would not disagree.

From what I've seen in just this thread, it's impossible to have any short of useful "conversation" about mass shootings, mostly for the reason that the left will never accept that the right also wants to stop mass shootings, too.

How can you possibly disagree with my need for such a tool when you have not bothered to ask a question of why I might need it. You are simply making an assumption based on your own experience which way or may not apply to my reality.

I once knew a man (now deceased) who really wanted to cure his lung cancer.
No-one doubted the sincerity of that - who would want such an ugly, painful death?
What frustrated those who loved him was his absolute, flat out refusal to stop smoking, all the way from the first onset of emphysema until a couple of days before his death from lung cancer. He'd have been smoking on his final day if he could, he had simply lost the strength to suck air through a cigarette. He certainly didn't want to die, but he wouldn't do everything he could to live, either.

Nobody 'wants' mass shootings. Nobody really believes that gun owners want innocent deaths. The question is what you would sacrifice in the hope of reducing them.

When someone like Halvard, or to a lesser extent BCtruguy1, makes a comment that you easily dismiss as classless and irrational you are avoiding an important issue. "Rights", particularly ones like gun ownership, have positive and negative consequences. The ongoing insistence of the gun lobby that there is absolutely no downside to virtually unfettered access to ever more powerful weaponry capable of (designed for) the mass slaughter of humans is an increasingly disgusting form of 'flat earth' denialism.

The overwhelming majority of shooting deaths in the USA pass pretty much unnoticed. However, every time there is a sufficiently savage mass shooting, particularly involving children, there is a form of national trauma. Everyone is appalled, gun owners, of course, every bit as much. But the gun lobby and gun 'nut' reaction is depressingly predictable. They redouble there efforts to attribute the blame to anything but guns. It's mental health, it's drugs, it's video games, it's family breakdown, it's immigration, it's fluoride in the water.

Every other developed country navigates those same issues without the USA's levels of gun deaths, or homicides generally, but somehow the USA's unique problem with gun violence has nothing whatsoever to do with the USA's unique policies on guns.

Asked what would cause a fundamental rethink of those polices the answer is always: nothing. It's never going to happen. Sandy Hook? Gun sales spiked. A Sandy Hook event daily in perpetuity? More guns is always the answer. There's nothing they aren't prepared to do, except restrictions on weapons. And there's nothing they aren't prepared to do to keep their guns.

I don't imagine "the right" (if that is a proxy for gun rights absolutists) don't care (and I wouldn't describe it as bad faith). But I doubt things can get much better when restrictions on your ability to kill are permanently off the table in efforts to curb the tendency of others to kill.

I know the zeitqeist is against me as the Site Owner is the leading proponent. He's either brave enough to offer this platform for disagreement, or he's just collecting posts on who is first in the line for the right thinking re-education camps.

what you are asking us to do is to undue over 200 years of precedent, culture, and inherent belief. You want us to do something that is wholly impractical.

you're here. you're posting. as are slowguy, JSA, BK, and a lot of guys who i've had violent disagreements with. we're well more than a dozen years into this forum. those who violently disagree with me, but are civil, and who are not simply abusive flame throwers, remain here and are valuable and welcome contributors, for whom i'm thankful. some who agree with me on many policies, but were abusive flame throwers, are not.

apparently there was an encounter you and i had in person that you reference that colors your posts to me. i regret that this bad encounter happened, tho i don't remember it. that encounter may change how you respond to me, but it won't change how i moderate your posts or the site.

I'd just finished a year in Vietnam and greatly enjoyed your ongoing article about endless pools. It was very influential to me. Your personal demeanor was a big disappointment in the bike check-in area was but not a determinant factor. Some people are just assholes

/r

that must have been some time ago. i haven't been in the bike check in area of ironman in quite a few years (that i can remember). you're right. some people are assholes. perhaps i was one. perhaps i am one. i don't think a person gets to judge whether he's an asshole. only others can make that assessment.

to be clear: other than the fact that i am a (shot)gun owner, i'm no expert. and, i don't know that i brought up hollowpoints, did i? i simply said the following, i think (tho please feel free to use my own words against me):

1. guns should eventually (in some sort of phased method) be keyed to their owners (not operable without a biosignature), so that we're there in 10 or 20 years.
2. guns and accessories (magazines, stocks) designed primarily to kill people should be outlawed.
3. we need to admit that a large number of people feel they need to be armed so as to fight their anti-government insurrection (just look at the polling) and one would like to see responsible gun owners distance themselves from this.
4. if ammunition is designed and purchased for the purpose of inflicting damage on human beings, it should be outlawed. i'm content to hear law enforcement's view on this. i think you and i can agree that:
a) i'm not the expert.
b) law enforcement are the experts.

i can also say the following, with some confidence: if we keep doing what we're doing (nothing) we'll keep getting what we're getting.

so, there you go. that's my view. i don't feel one needs to be an expert in armaments or ballistics to hold this view in a responsible and informed manner.

This is likely your best post on this topic and I want to commend you on it. You make some excellent points and I appreciate your thoughtfulness and tone. Kudos.

.

I appreciate your view. And would welcome your view on my counter point about alcohol. Deaths related to alcohol are kicking the shit outa gun death stats....even with all of the things we are trying to do to stop it.....which is A LOT! thanks dan