Somehow we missed this: another school shooting

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

In San Bernardino. At least one 8-year old dead.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-shooting-san-bernardino-north-folk20170410-story.html

 

[RBB89]

In San Bernardino. At least one 8-year old dead.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-shooting-san-bernardino-north-folk20170410-story.html

Geez. Again?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Geez. Again?

Looks like an upset husband. Killed his wife and himself, and some poor kid got caught up in it.

Gotta do something about depression in this country.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Gotta do something about depression in this country.

You don't have to be depressed to get pissed off enough to kill someone, especially if you can just grab a gun and do it in about 1 second. Maybe the guy was depressed. Who gives a shit? His depression didn't walk into a store, buy a gun, and then proceed to kill his wife and that innocent child standing behind her. We either do something about guns or we need to simply skip over stories like this and accept the fact that this type of shit will simply be the collateral damage we deal with so we can all own as many firearms as we want.

 

[UncleMark]

We either do something about guns or we need to simply skip over stories like this and accept the fact that this type of shit will simply be the collateral damage we deal with so we can all own as many firearms as we want.

Why do you hate our freedom?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You don't have to be depressed to get pissed off enough to kill someone, especially if you can just grab a gun and do it in about 1 second. Maybe the guy was depressed. Who gives a shit? His depression didn't walk into a store, buy a gun, and then proceed to kill his wife and that innocent child standing behind her. We either do something about guns or we need to simply skip over stories like this and accept the fact that this type of shit will simply be the collateral damage we deal with so we can all own as many firearms as we want.

Even if I agreed with you - which you know I don't - you ain't putting that genie back in the bottle. We need to focus on mental health in this country. Guns are here, and that's not changing. Mental disorder is also here, but we can do something about that.

 

[mjvcaj]

Even if I agreed with you - which you know I don't - you ain't putting that genie back in the bottle. We need to focus on mental health in this country. Guns are here, and that's not changing. Mental disorder is also here, but we can do something about that.

Not just that, but this dude would have found a way to kill his wife regardless. I'm not trying to suggest the loss of the poor 8 year old isn't an important fact, but he was going to do what he needed to deal with his wife that apparently decided to separate from him.

Talk about a creepy Facebook post... this guy deserves a special place in hell for what he did because he clearly knew right from wrong.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Not just that, but this dude would have found a way to kill his wife regardless. I'm not trying to suggest the loss of the poor 8 year old isn't an important fact, but he was going to do what he needed to deal with his wife that apparently decided to separate from him.

Talk about a creepy Facebook post... this guy deserves a special place in hell for what he did because he clearly knew right from wrong.

View embedded media

Yeah, I get where you are coming from, but I think your reticence is because you know deep inside that's a shitty argument. Gun policy can't be based on individuals. Stronger gun control might have saved that 8 year old. It might not have. We have no way of knowing. But we do know that strong gun control has about the same effect on crime overall as weaker gun control does - practically zilch.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Yeah, I get where you are coming from, but I think your reticence is because you know deep inside that's a shitty argument. Gun policy can't be based on individuals. Stronger gun control might have saved that 8 year old. It might not have. We have no way of knowing. But we do know that strong gun control has about the same effect on crime overall as weaker gun control does - practically zilch.

In this country, yes. In Australia and the U.K. It has profound effects.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

In this country, yes. In Australia and the U.K. It has profound effects.

Very different situations, although I am sympathetic to your point. But let's not forget the timing. Australia passed that law right before gun violence began dropping throughout the western world. How much was attributable to the new laws is very much debatable.

 

[mjvcaj]

Yeah, I get where you are coming from, but I think your reticence is because you know deep inside that's a shitty argument. Gun policy can't be based on individuals. Stronger gun control might have saved that 8 year old. It might not have. We have no way of knowing. But we do know that strong gun control has about the same effect on crime overall as weaker gun control does - practically zilch.

I've never been a strong supporter of that right, as I'm not a gun owner and my wife would kill me if I ever bought one given we have a child now in the house. I'm just saying, the guy would have killed his wife regardless. Where it could have saved lives would have been the collateral damage. This isn't always the case though, as some other cowards might decide to use a bomb or something of that nature.

Either way, I'm with you on stronger gun control.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I've never been a strong supporter of that right, as I'm not a gun owner and my wife would kill me if I ever bought one given we have a child now in the house. I'm just saying, the guy would have killed his wife regardless. Where it could have saved lives would have been the collateral damage. This isn't always the case though, as some other cowards might decide to use a bomb or something of that nature.

Either way, I'm with you on stronger gun control.

Yeah, you'll always be able to come up with individual examples for both sides. But I think there's enough research to say that there is no correlation overall between gun control laws and gun violence. If we want to cut down on gun violence in this country, cutting down on gun ownership is probably not the best way to do it. It sounds counterintuitive, but that's what the research says. We should always bend to research when it contradicts our staunchly held beliefs. I expect smart conservatives to do so with climate change, and so I also expect staunch liberals to do so with gun control. Liberals who refuse to accept the facts (as we know them at the moment) on guns are no better than climate-deniers.

 

[DrHoops]

The only important thing about this story is whether the shooter was Muslim. If not, we can just shrug our shoulders and say sh!t happens. If so, we get a new travel ban and an excuse to turn away refugees.

You don't have to be depressed to get pissed off enough to kill someone, especially if you can just grab a gun and do it in about 1 second. Maybe the guy was depressed. Who gives a shit? His depression didn't walk into a store, buy a gun, and then proceed to kill his wife and that innocent child standing behind her. We either do something about guns or we need to simply skip over stories like this and accept the fact that this type of shit will simply be the collateral damage we deal with so we can all own as many firearms as we want.

 

[baileyiu]

Yeah, you'll always be able to come up with individual examples for both sides. But I think there's enough research to say that there is no correlation overall between gun control laws and gun violence. If we want to cut down on gun violence in this country, cutting down on gun ownership is probably not the best way to do it. It sounds counterintuitive, but that's what the research says. We should always bend to research when it contradicts our staunchly held beliefs. I expect smart conservatives to do so with climate change, and so I also expect staunch liberals to do so with gun control. Liberals who refuse to accept the facts (as we know them at the moment) on guns are no better than climate-deniers.

Not according to Columbia Law School article on Gauging the effectiveness of Gun Control Laws dated 3/10/16. Three laws could reduce gun deaths from 10.3 per 100k to 1.81 per 100k -- Universal Background Checks, Background Checks for Ammunition, Firearm Identification.

Are you willing to bend?

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Even if I agreed with you - which you know I don't - you ain't putting that genie back in the bottle. We need to focus on mental health in this country. Guns are here, and that's not changing. Mental disorder is also here, but we can do something about that.

Good luck with that too. Working in health care for almost two decades and in health insurance for years before that I can tell you you're more likely to get an outright gun ban in place than "do something" about mental health issues. We simply don't have the providers or facilities to deal with it.

I'm giving you your options here. You say we can't do anything about guns. I know it's just this side of impossible to do anything about mental health issues the way it needs to be done. It simply isn't taken seriously. "Aww, what's wrong? Aww, are you sad? Aww...get the f*** over it" is pretty much how mental health is dealt with.

So, it looks like our most likely option is to not make a big deal out of stories like this. This is just the type of shit that's gonna happen from time to time. People need and want their guns and they don't need a bunch of restrictions on their constitutional right to own every gun they can find. This is a side effect we need to learn to be ok with.

 

[Hank Reardon]

Not according to Columbia Law School article on Gauging the effectiveness of Gun Control Laws dated 3/10/16. Three laws could reduce gun deaths from 10.3 per 100k to 1.81 per 100k -- Universal Background Checks, Background Checks for Ammunition, Firearm Identification.

Are you willing to bend?

Do you have a link to the full study? All I can find are the summary conclusions, and a link requiring payment for the full report and methodology.

I'd truly be curious as I'm skeptical of their conclusions regarding statements such as background checks for ammunition purchases could reduce the mortality rate to 1.99 per 100,000. How was this determined?

I'd also be curious how much of this would be attributed to suicides. Now, I'm not exactly pro-suicide but with regards to gun stats I can't find myself too worked up about it. Whether the presence of a firearm makes it easier for someone to off themselves shouldn't, in my opinion, be much of a consideration.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Do you have a link to the full study? All I can find are the summary conclusions, and a link requiring payment for the full report and methodology.

I'd truly be curious as I'm skeptical of their conclusions regarding statements such as background checks for ammunition purchases could reduce the mortality rate to 1.99 per 100,000. How was this determined?

I'd also be curious how much of this would be attributed to suicides. Now, I'm not exactly pro-suicide but with regards to gun stats I can't find myself too worked up about it. Whether the presence of a firearm makes it easier for someone to off themselves shouldn't, in my opinion, be much of a consideration.

http://lostallhope.com/suicide-statistics/us-methods-suicide

Sure looks like a firearm makes it easier.

 

[Hank Reardon]

http://lostallhope.com/suicide-statistics/us-methods-suicide

Sure looks like a firearm makes it easier.

I never said it didn't. I said I didn't care with regards to the issue of gun legislation. If someone want to kill themselves I guess they will. I've had three extended family members and one acquaintance commit suicide. None used a firearm. I don't see "easier suicide" as an argument for increased gun legislation any more than I see alcohol abuse by some as a reason why I shouldn't be allowed to buy craft beer to drink with the game.

Would there be fewer (successful) suicides in the absence of guns? Probably. But if suicide is the concern there are probably more effective methods of dealing with that problem than simply removing one means of accomplishing it.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

More than 1200 people die from murder-suicide each year. 93% use a firearm, 89% of the total originated by men. So there is one glaring solution, make it illegal for men to have guns and require women to carry guns. Statistics source

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

I never said it didn't. I said I didn't care with regards to the issue of gun legislation. If someone want to kill themselves I guess they will. I've had three extended family members and one acquaintance commit suicide. None used a firearm. I don't see "easier suicide" as an argument for increased gun legislation any more than I see alcohol abuse by some as a reason why I shouldn't be allowed to buy craft beer to drink with the game.

Would there be fewer (successful) suicides in the absence of guns? Probably. But if suicide is the concern there are probably more effective methods of dealing with that problem than simply removing one means of accomplishing it.

And I'm not saying suicide should be an argument for gun control. It's glaringly obvious this country has zero interest in any gun control as suggested by the people continuously being elected. I'm pointing out statistics and basic facts that we're just gonna have to accept as a result of our gun love. You want everyone to have guns and to be able to get them without a whole lot of regulation? Fine, but don't come crying when you or someone you love gets their ass shot off.

 

[baileyiu]

Do you have a link to the full study? All I can find are the summary conclusions, and a link requiring payment for the full report and methodology.

I'd truly be curious as I'm skeptical of their conclusions regarding statements such as background checks for ammunition purchases could reduce the mortality rate to 1.99 per 100,000. How was this determined?

I'd also be curious how much of this would be attributed to suicides. Now, I'm not exactly pro-suicide but with regards to gun stats I can't find myself too worked up about it. Whether the presence of a firearm makes it easier for someone to off themselves shouldn't, in my opinion, be much of a consideration.

I have no link for a "free" complete report - only what you found

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Not according to Columbia Law School article on Gauging the effectiveness of Gun Control Laws dated 3/10/16. Three laws could reduce gun deaths from 10.3 per 100k to 1.81 per 100k -- Universal Background Checks, Background Checks for Ammunition, Firearm Identification.

Are you willing to bend?

I'm skeptical without seeing the study itself, but if you can get the support to pass those three particular laws, I'd be cool with giving them a shot.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

I'm skeptical without seeing the study itself, but if you can get the support to pass those three particular laws, I'd be cool with giving them a shot.

No pun intended?

 

[Ladoga]

Another murder done with a firearm in a "gun free zone". One more time - after all other times - that the gun free zone had zero effect.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Another murder done with a firearm in a "gun free zone". One more time - after all other times - that the gun free zone had zero effect.

Damn, this response took a long time to show up. This post is going on 20-21 hours old.

Wayne LittlePeter approves your post.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I have no link for a "free" complete report - only what you found

I looked at the abstract at The Lancet. There's a little more detail, but the salient points:
1. They studied 25 different types of gun law passed in 2009.
2. They looked at gun violence from 2008-2010.
3. Most laws had no correlation to drops or rises in gun violence.
4. A few had correlations with an increase in violence; a few had correlations with a decrease.
5. The three they picked were the three with the strongest correlations with a decrease in gun violence.

What's missing from the abstract is how they arrived at their predicted drop of nationwide implementation, which seems on the surface to be outrageously optimistic. Also missing is a justification for the very precise sample they chose.

I'm not going to say "bad science!" at an abstract. It could be a very good study. But from reading the abstract only, I do remain skeptical; it reads like they are writing a check they can't cash.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I looked at the abstract at The Lancet. There's a little more detail, but the salient points:
1. They studied 25 different types of gun law passed in 2009.
2. They looked at gun violence from 2008-2010.
3. Most laws had no correlation to drops or rises in gun violence.
4. A few had correlations with an increase in violence; a few had correlations with a decrease.
5. The three they picked were the three with the strongest correlations with a decrease in gun violence.

What's missing from the abstract is how they arrived at their predicted drop of nationwide implementation, which seems on the surface to be outrageously optimistic. Also missing is a justification for the very precise sample they chose.

I'm not going to say "bad science!" at an abstract. It could be a very good study. But from reading the abstract only, I do remain skeptical; it reads like they are writing a check they can't cash.

It sounds like bad science. I'm most offended that they only looked at one more year after passing the laws. Intuitively I would hypothesize that society would need longer to adjust to a new law/regulation...especially from the enforcement perspective.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

It sounds like bad science. I'm most offended that they only looked at one more year after passing the laws. Intuitively I would hypothesize that society would need longer to adjust to a new law/regulation...especially from the enforcement perspective.

Yep, plus different laws might require different amounts of time for effects to be noticed. Widespread gun confiscation, for example, would probably show measurable effects much more quickly than ammunition background checks.

 

[MrBing]

Even if I agreed with you - which you know I don't - you ain't putting that genie back in the bottle. We need to focus on mental health in this country. Guns are here, and that's not changing. Mental disorder is also here, but we can do something about that.

I'm a gun owner and I support the right to own weapons for self defense. Because I'm a Democrat that surprises some of my Republican friends and it disappoints some of my Democratic friends. Some have gotten angry about it. Sorry but we don't have to agree with our party's general position on all issues so suck it up. I support reasonable restrictions and mandatory training for owning guns but I support owning them for people qualified to own them.

 

[Hank Reardon]

Yep, plus different laws might require different amounts of time for effects to be noticed. Widespread gun confiscation, for example, would probably show measurable effects much more quickly than ammunition background checks.

No kidding. I own three handguns, and at the rate I shoot them I'll never run out of ammunition or be in a position where I'll need to purchase more, barring zombie apocalypse or other societal collapse necessitating armed resistance. Even then I might be OK. Most gun owners that I know (admittedly not that many) have thousands of rounds of FMJ at least. Background checks on ammo purchases (which I'm not necessarily against) would take years to have a significant effect. Even then you'd have to believe that the underground market for ammo would be huge.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I'm a gun owner and I support the right to own weapons for self defense. Because I'm a Democrat that surprises some of my Republican friends and it disappoints some of my Democratic friends. Some have gotten angry about it. Sorry but we don't have to agree with our party's general position on all issues so suck it up. I support reasonable restrictions and mandatory training for owning guns but I support owning them for people qualified to own them.

Democrats aren't opposed to gun ownership. They're opposed to senseless lack of regulations and doing nothing to try to reduce gun violence.

 

[MrBing]

Democrats aren't opposed to gun ownership. They're opposed to senseless lack of regulations and doing nothing to try to reduce gun violence.

Many are opposed. Many of my friends are opposed to gun ownership and they're for more restrictions than I do if they don't oppose owning them. I've had some arguments even with my family members on this issue. I'm not going to stand for someone telling me what I am or what I should support. I value freedom very highly and I can think for myself.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Many are opposed. Many of my friends are opposed to gun ownership and they're for more restrictions than I do if they don't oppose owning them. I've had some arguments even with my family members on this issue. I'm not going to stand for someone telling me what I am or what I should support. I value freedom very highly and I can think for myself.

True true. I guess when I say "Democrats" im talking about the actual party and its officials. The platform of democrats is gun control - not elimination.

 

[Lucy01]

Another murder done with a firearm in a "gun free zone". One more time - after all other times - that the gun free zone had zero effect.

You mean criminals ignore the law" Shock and Dispair"

 

[Hank Reardon]

True true. I guess when I say "Democrats" im talking about the actual party and its officials. The platform of democrats is gun control - not elimination.

That's true regarding the official platform. But I also think it's a little naive to not suspect that the ideal end game would be the elimination of private ownership. That's why otherwise sensible reform tends to fail, because no one believes that's where it ends. It is perceived as simply another step.

Now you might disagree with that notion, but I'm pretty convinced I'm not far off.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

That's true regarding the official platform. But I also think it's a little naive to not suspect that the ideal end game would be the elimination of private ownership. That's why otherwise sensible reform tends to fail, because no one believes that's where it ends. It is perceived as simply another step.

Now you might disagree with that notion, but I'm pretty convinced I'm not far off.

I don't disagree with you saying "That's why otherwise sensible reform tends to fail, because no one believes that's where it ends. It is perceived as simply another step." Insofar as it is an irrational belief and is used mostly by fake news promoters to sway votes against gun control.

But I don't agree that it is the Democrats' end state.

 

[toastedbread]

I don't disagree with you saying "That's why otherwise sensible reform tends to fail, because no one believes that's where it ends. It is perceived as simply another step." Insofar as it is an irrational belief and is used mostly by fake news promoters to sway votes against gun control.

But I don't agree that it is the Democrats' end state.

I've never understood why a right to own a weapon is more important than saving lives? A lot harder to kill with a kitchen knife than an AK. 2nd amendment was written when most americans were farmers. The founding fathers never imagined such beasts of war. Guns were not designed for urban living.

 

[Hank Reardon]

I've never understood why a right to own a weapon is more important than saving lives? A lot harder to kill with a kitchen knife than an AK. 2nd amendment was written when most americans were farmers. The founding fathers never imagined such beasts of war. Guns were not designed for urban living.

This is illustrative of my point.

"I've never understood why a right to own a weapon is more important than saving lives?"

One may say I'm paranoid, but the rhetoric always returns to the same thing. Why should citizens own guns? So no, I don't believe for a minute that sensible reform (which I am most certainly not opposed to) is the desired end game.

 

[toastedbread]

This is illustrative of my point.

"I've never understood why a right to own a weapon is more important than saving lives?"

One may say I'm paranoid, but the rhetoric always returns to the same thing. Why should citizens own guns? So no, I don't believe for a minute that sensible reform (which I am most certainly not opposed to) is the desired end game.

Why is your right to own a gun more important than saving lives? ... Still waiting...

 

[Hank Reardon]

Why is your right to own a gun more important than saving lives? ... Still waiting...

That's an absurd question, and could be applied to hundreds of things. "Why is your right to buy booze more important than saving lives?" We could do this all day.