Sutherland shooting

Duck and cover
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Sutherland shooting

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sun Nov 05, 2017 11:22 pm

Here we go again !
Another 27 people shot dead.

Donald Trump being ever so constructive tweets that he hopes God will be with the people affected. I am sure that will help !

But the one thing you can guarantee is that no politician will do anything actually effective in trying to prevent it happening again.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Nov 05, 2017 11:25 pm

The Holocaust thread has noted there was also a mass shooting in Colorado. A two-fer.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1187
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado, USA

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Cadmusteeth » Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:28 am

I saw that on the news not too long ago.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4900
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by gorgeous » Mon Nov 06, 2017 4:07 pm

church member shot at the guy.......Don't mess with Texas...especially in church.........,don't know how the shooter died...hmmm......
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 9042
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Aztexan » Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:44 am

Thank god it was only 26 dead and not more. God is awesome for preventing 27 people from dying. Too bad he couldn't save those other 26 but he is great for stopping it from being 27.
trump is Putin's bitch

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 9042
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Aztexan » Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:47 am

gorgeous wrote:church member shot at the guy.......Don't mess with Texas...especially in church.........,don't know how the shooter died...hmmm......
I can't find the clues to connect this mass murder to trump like I can last week's mass murder of those bicyclists in New York.
Help me out here.
trump is Putin's bitch

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:49 am

Trump said : "This is not about guns."

What a smart guy. That would have fooled me entirely. A mass shooting, and it is not about guns. Goodness me.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22154
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:04 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Trump said : "This is not about guns."

What a smart guy. That would have fooled me entirely. A mass shooting, and it is not about guns. Goodness me.
It's not about guns. It's about lunatics with too easy access to guns.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9837
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by TJrandom » Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:39 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:Trump said : "This is not about guns."

What a smart guy. That would have fooled me entirely. A mass shooting, and it is not about guns. Goodness me.
It's not about guns. It's about lunatics with too easy access to guns.
Well, it WAS Texas....

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22154
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:50 am

TJrandom wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:Trump said : "This is not about guns."

What a smart guy. That would have fooled me entirely. A mass shooting, and it is not about guns. Goodness me.
It's not about guns. It's about lunatics with too easy access to guns.
Well, it WAS Texas....
One of my cousins bought a four-door pickup truck so he could carry the guns he thought essential for everyday commuting from the enclave to the factory where he works. It's a five mile drive, all through farm country.
"But there could be government tanks in any of those barns!"
"Yeah, and they'd crush you like a bug!"
"That's why I need more guns!"
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:20 am

IIRC, about the first admin rule that Trump removed on taking office was a restriction of the right of people with mental problems to get guns. He IS an expert on this particular subject.

libel: (law) a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person

defamation: A false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone's words or actions

malicious: Marked by deep ill will; deliberately harmful

Hmmmm...... seems to me if we all "sign up" to post on this thread that we declare ourselves to be knuckledragging lying incompetent miscreants unloved by our mothers and therefore that no slur or allegation could further lower our estimation in the eyes of our fellow man, that this thread should be immune from any claim of libel?

I so claim this status for myself. I cannot be libeled. As a human being, I'm lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 9042
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Aztexan » Tue Nov 07, 2017 12:58 pm

I always thought that when America had a drunk driving epidemic, it was because we had too many cars on the road.
trump is Putin's bitch

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22154
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:48 pm

Aztexan wrote:I always thought that when America had a drunk driving epidemic, it was because we had too many cars on the road.
Tovarish! Da Rodina nyet have drunk driving thing! :lol:
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9561
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Pyrrho » Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:24 pm

I don't think this mass murderer was a lunatic or otherwise mentally ill. Too easy an excuse.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22154
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:59 pm

Pyrrho wrote:I don't think this mass murderer was a lunatic or otherwise mentally ill. Too easy an excuse.
I heard he was admin on a forum somewhere. :shock:
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4362
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by ElectricMonk » Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:49 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Pyrrho wrote:I don't think this mass murderer was a lunatic or otherwise mentally ill. Too easy an excuse.
I heard he was admin on a forum somewhere. :shock:

that explains a lot.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9561
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Pyrrho » Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:16 pm

If you got half a mind to be a forum administrator that's all you need.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22154
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:39 pm

Pyrrho wrote:If you got half a mind to be a forum administrator that's all you need.
#paddedestimate
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9837
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by TJrandom » Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:54 pm

Here in Japan, we obviously must not have any mentally ill people - as evidenced by our lack of mass shootings. :roll:

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:01 pm

It is funny how many people ignore the simple fact that to get mass shootings, you need guns.

In Europe, where guns are more tightly controlled, from 2009 to 2015, there were 19 mass shootings. In the USA, this year to the end of September, there were 307. Is it possible, there may be a link between gun availability and number of mass shootings ?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:26 pm

It is funny how many people ignore the simple fact that to get mass deaths from "object X", you need lots of "object X".

It is funny how many people are willing to sacrifice thousands of other people's lives every year in order to have the convenience of automobiles (or in the case of New York City, rental trucks).

The standard response to that that is "We need cars, but we don't need guns" or "Cars have a legitimate purpose, but guns do not."

And that is where the disagreement lies.

Some people are of the opinion we don't need guns, and some people recognize that guns do in fact have a legal and legitimate purpose.

Stalemate.

We have had this conversation before. Nothing has changed. Nothing will  change.

You can keep flogging a dead horse, or not.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9837
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by TJrandom » Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:39 pm

At least with cars, one can choose to drive or not, and ones skill, knowledge, and self-control vastly improves your chances of never having an accident or becoming a victim. Quite unlike assault weapon availability, which leaves victims entirely at the mercy of the deranged other.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:42 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:IIRC, about the first admin rule that Trump removed on taking office was a restriction of the right of people with mental problems to get guns.
Correction: What Trump did sign a bill that was passed by Congress.

Further clarification: That bill canceled an unconstitutional restriction on certain people. Everyone who buys a gun from a dealer still has to pass an appropriate background check.

What Obama tried to do was to put a certain group of people in the "national background check database" without going through due process as required by the fifth amendment.

Congress overturned Obama's unconstitutional action.

This country still stands for the principle that you cannot infringe someone's rights without due process.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:53 pm

On cars.
My argument there is that the use of cars is subject to massive restrictions to minimise the carnage. The use of guns is not. How stupid is that ?

Xouper
You think that letting people classified as mentally ill have guns is a "right" . What about the right of ordinary people not be be shot and killed by those who are insane ?

There is no doubt in my mind, and I think, in the minds of all rational people, that the incredible number of mass shootings in the USA is fuelled by easy availability of guns, including military style weapons designed for mass slaughter.
Last edited by Lance Kennedy on Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:54 pm

TJrandom wrote:At least with cars, one can choose to drive or not, and ones skill, knowledge, and self-control vastly improves your chances of never having an accident or becoming a victim.
And yet the number of people killed each year from drunk drivers is about the same number as gun homicides.

TJrandom wrote:Quite unlike assault weapon availability, which leaves victims entirely at the mercy of the deranged other.
It's not true that victims are "entirely at the mercy of the deranged other". In the Sutherland Shooting, a neighbor used his "assault weapon" to chase away the shooter. It is unknowable how many lives he saved by doing that.

Furthermore, the number of deaths each year from mass shootings with an "assault weapon" is a mere handful compared to the ten thousand or so drunk driving deaths.

They are not even close to being comparable in the damage done.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:57 pm

There are 100,000 people each year in the USA who get a bullet through some part of their anatomy, even not including suicides. Drunk driving does not do that.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Tue Nov 07, 2017 8:06 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:On cars.
My argument there is that the use of cars is subject to massive restrictions to minimise the carnage. The use of guns is not. How stupid is that ?
It's not stupid at all. It is merely a difference of opinion.

Secondly, what restrictions are you referring to that are imposed on the usage of cars to prevent them from being used by drunk drivers?

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper
You think that letting people classified as mentally ill have guns is a "right" .
I did not say that.

If a person has been legally classified as mentally ill in accordance with due process as required by the fifth amendment, then I agree that is a legitimate infringement of their right to buy guns. That is one of the many compromises I am willing to make regarding the Second Amendment.

What Obama tried to do was infringe the rights of people who had not been legally classified as mentally ill.

Lance Kennedy wrote:What about the right of ordinary people not be be shot and killed by those who are insane ?
What about it? They still have that right.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Nov 07, 2017 8:16 pm

Xouper

I cannot speak for the USA about policy on drunk driving. Here in NZ, it is severely policed. The penalties for drunk drivers are nasty, and the policing is stringent, with "booze buses " equipped with breath testing on the road frequently. I have been pulled over and tested three or four times, and I never drive after drinking alcohol.

But guns in the USA get free reign.

People in the USA do NOT have the right to avoid being shot by the insane, when the government is not acting to prevent it.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Tue Nov 07, 2017 8:21 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:There are 100,000 people each year in the USA who get a bullet through some part of their anatomy, even not including suicides. Drunk driving does not do that.
Drunk drivers cause more than twice that many injuries per year.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Tue Nov 07, 2017 8:23 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:There is no doubt in my mind, and I think, in the minds of all rational people, that the incredible number of mass shootings in the USA is fuelled by easy availability of guns, including military style weapons designed for mass slaughter.
There is no doubt in my mind, and I think, in the minds of all rational people, that the incredible number of deaths by drunk driving in the USA is fueled by easy availability of cars and alcohol.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Tue Nov 07, 2017 8:26 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:People in the USA do NOT have the right to avoid being shot by the insane, when the government is not acting to prevent it.
By that same logic, people in the USA do NOT have the right to avoid being injured or killed by drunk drivers, when the government is not acting to prevent it.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Nov 07, 2017 8:43 pm

Is your government failing to take action to minimise drunk driving ?

It surely is failing big time to take action to minimise mass shootings.

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6031
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Martin Brock » Tue Nov 07, 2017 8:52 pm

Pyrrho wrote:I don't think this mass murderer was a lunatic or otherwise mentally ill. Too easy an excuse.
The alternative seems to be atheistic terrorism, but that qualifies as lunacy IMO. The killer in NYC is also a lunatic. Shouting "God is Great" before killing strangers is not evidence of mental health. It's not evidence of collusion with al Qaeda or ISIS or the Taliban (or Saudi Arabia) either. Both the Uzbeki guy and this guy in Texas were lone wolves with delusions of grandeur. Trump (and Obama and Bush) is similar, but he has an army.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9561
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Pyrrho » Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:04 pm

I think it's too simplistic and too easy to say that a terrorist or a mass shooter is "mentally ill", and I think doing so leads to ignoring other possible motivations, for example, drug and/or alcohol abuse. There is also the aspect of notoriety; I think many news outlets do us no favors by publicizing photos of the killers and their backgrounds, manifestos, and whatever else.

I do not delude myself into believing that anything will change.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:09 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Is your government failing to take action to minimise drunk driving ?

It surely is failing big time to take action to minimise mass shootings.
Yes and yes.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:31 pm

I love how almost every issue can be boiled down to defining our terms. Then ignore any conclusions to be drawn therefrom of course.........

I like: Calling mass shooters insane is too easy. Thats true...but "something" is going on there. How about: "Every mass shooter is being anti-social?" And that fails because the religious types are being social conforming.... just to a group/values we don't like.

Soup: thanks for the correction on Trumps legislative record. I remember he did something but thought he had zero legislative actions. I was wrong. Not as wrong as you are in your incessant reference to guns are ok because cars are ok. Its the reverse that is more true: guns are not ok, because cars are not ok. Because of that, we very closely as best we can regulate the later, but not the former. so...to the degree your analogy is useful, you hold the wrong end of the stick. The ONLY argument you have, is that the Supremes are just as nuts as you are........or there are nuts somewhere? I think (again.....everything is again on this subject) the Supremes fail to apply the different levels of lethality of the tech when the 2nd Amend was written to what guns are today. Easy to correct...... just apply original intent (and circumstances) to correct this bad path we have gone down. Then......let Majority Will reign. I expect guns would be outlawed........well before cars..........because arguing cars is .......... nuts.

so.... what's going on here is trying to capture a wide range of activities/attitudes/situations with one label. aka: constipation....no thats not right...........OH==>conflation. Lot's of "con" words. We should learn them all......

I'm willing to say that anyone that mass shoots a bunch of strangers, or even well known folks such as ex-work place workers, is close enough to nuts to forego the fine shadings? What interest is given short change by such overbroad application? They may not be "all nuts".... but there are nuts somewhere. The Texas shooter for instance....kicked out of the Air Force for domestic violence: cracked his baby's head, put wifey in the ER several times. Still not all nuts....but nuts are invovled. Don't they ALL need psychiatric help..... even after the fact if still alive? If you need/get help from psych services.....aren't nuts somewhere in the picture?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:34 pm

xouper wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:Is your government failing to take action to minimise drunk driving ?

It surely is failing big time to take action to minimise mass shootings.
Yes and yes.
At least that answer is sensible. But if the government is currently failing, then what, in your view, should it do to minimise both ?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14856
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:44 pm

Well done Lance. I expect the response if anything more than two worlds to say "do nothing." I can get it down to four: "I've answered that before." Its like a catchy tune: stuck in one's head.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9561
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by Pyrrho » Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:21 pm

Keep it on topic, please.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm

Re: Sutherland shooting

Post by xouper » Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:26 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
xouper wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:Is your government failing to take action to minimise drunk driving ?

It surely is failing big time to take action to minimise mass shootings.
Yes and yes.
At least that answer is sensible. But if the government is currently failing, then what, in your view, should it do to minimise both ?
That's a complex issue. I don't have any answers, merely some conjectures.

On drunk driving . . .

For mitigating drunk driving, at least in the long term view, it seems that driverless cars might be a good solution.

In the short term, stricter penalties for drunk driving might help. I'm very much in favor of that.

Another possibility that doesn't seem to have gotten any traction on a large scale is to offer free rides to any drunk who needs to get home. Paid for by private charity. I am opposed to using taxes to pay for that.

On mass shootings . . .

Most mass shootings occur in so-called gun-free zones, where the shooter knows in advance there will not be anyone there to stop him, at least initially.

Perhaps it would be helpful to deny potential shooters that advantage. In two ways.

One, do away with most gun-free zones. All they do is create defenseless victim zones and give a false sense of security.

Image

Image

The bad guys are already violating the laws against killing people, so why should they be bothered about violating a stupid gun free zone? Get rid of them, or replace them with this next solution.

Secondly, consider the actions taken to minimize shootings in banks and various other potential targets. They have armed guards.

After the shooting in 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, more schools have gotten armed guards or have allowed staff the option to carry guns for defense. It's too soon to say if this will mitigate the problem in the US, but this solution is known to work in other countries.

See for example: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarko ... g-n1850413

Perhaps this solution might extend to churches?

Speaking of which . . . In the Southerland church shooting, which is the topic of this thread, a neighbor used his "assault weapon" to prevent further deaths. It is not possible to know how many more people would have died if not for that good guy with an "assault rifle".

When seconds count, the police are mere minutes away. Which is why it usually helps to have armed good guys near by.

One solution that is not workable in the US, is to ban so-called "assault weapons". We have already had that discussion.

Another proposed solution that is not workable is so-called smart guns. That solution is problematic for several reasons.

Otherwise, I am not (yet) aware of other possible solutions that do not infringe the fundamental rights of millions of Americans. But I am certainly open to considering other proposals.

Does that answer your question?