• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Another Shooting: Garlic Festival in Gilroy, California

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
HomerJS said:
We do know if we took away guns from people prone to commit suicide there would be less suicides.

BTW - #1 source of gun deaths.
Click to expand...


Guns are a fairly effective way of ending one's own life, yes. But, someone making a choice for themselves is a whole different discussion than murders and mass shootings.
 
SlowSpyder said:
Guns are a fairly effective way of ending one's own life, yes. But, someone making a choice for themselves is a whole different discussion than murders and mass shootings.
Click to expand...
You brought up suicide so I just responded.

For the record restricting rights for people incapable of handling them isn't something new.
 
SlowSpyder said:
I just don't blame the method, I blame the person causing the harm. And in America, our ways to address problems shouldn't be to continue to erode constitutional rights. People that want to kill and have an opportunity to attack unsuspecting victims by surprise will kill.
Click to expand...

Or Japan with arson. That was brutal.

You have a valid point that gun ownership is a constitutional right. But it has gone too far. One cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater and cause people to be trampled to death. Neither should one be careless with firearms. Restrictions on constitutional rights have become a long held standard. "Shall not be infringed" is nice and all, but people get murdered and we suddenly have a conflict between the right to live, VS the right to easily take lives.

Although, I suppose Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness isn't exactly something enumerated into the Bill of Rights.

Still, I hold that they are rights. And when two rights are in conflict, one right must prevail at the expense of another. Kids like this shouldn't just turn 18 and grab the means to kill. They shouldn't be guaranteed that right at the expense of people's lives. I'd require a license with specific training and screening, and I'd restrict to single shot bolt action rifle, unless otherwise professionally employed. But that's just me in my desire to uphold the lives of other people against the easiest weapons of mass destruction readily available.

I am for action, you are for... evasion? Does the stats quo suit you just fine?
 
More innocent lives sacrificed to the 2nd Amendment God. His worshipers sure are loyal and keep him happy with unsuspecting souls.
 
I think I figured out a solution to the mass shootings this morning. It's scientifically proven that offering "thoughts and prayers" does work. But people are offering them up AFTER the mass killing. Everyone needs to start offering up thoughts and prayers every morning BEFORE an attack can happen, not after. This simple act alone should completely eliminate any further mass killings. You're welcome.
 
Jaskalas said:
Or Japan with arson. That was brutal.

You have a valid point that gun ownership is a constitutional right. But it has gone too far. One cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater and cause people to be trampled to death. Neither should one be careless with firearms. Restrictions on constitutional rights have become a long held standard. "Shall not be infringed" is nice and all, but people get murdered and we suddenly have a conflict between the right to live, VS the right to easily take lives.

Although, I suppose Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness isn't exactly something enumerated into the Bill of Rights.

Still, I hold that they are rights. And when two rights are in conflict, one right must prevail at the expense of another. Kids like this shouldn't just turn 18 and grab the means to kill. They shouldn't be guaranteed that right at the expense of people's lives. I'd require a license with specific training and screening, and I'd restrict to single shot bolt action rifle, unless otherwise professionally employed. But that's just me in my desire to uphold the lives of other people against the easiest weapons of mass destruction readily available.

I am for action, you are for... evasion? Does the stats quo suit you just fine?
Click to expand...


I can't say I agree. In the 90's nearly 2x as many people were murdered in the US as today. Violent crime is on the large decreasing over the last few decades And the restrictions the left continually wants to put in place typically have little to nothing to do with handguns which account for the vast majority of gun violence. Knives kill considerably more than all long guns (shotguns + rifles combined). Some ~30% of Americans (80-100,000,000 people) own guns and they account for ~12000 murders and ~23000 suicides. In light of this, when compared to other liberties that harm us, they do relatively little harm. On the other hand ~34 million Americans smoke, tobacco is responsible for ~480,000 deaths a year (40-50,000 innocent people due to second hand smoke) and no Democrat is running on a platform of further restricting tobacco rights. Can you show that the restrictions you want will help with the problem and not just harm legal gun owners? Or do you think the answer is to get rid of the 2A altogether?
 
SlowSpyder said:
I can't say I agree. In the 90's nearly 2x as many people were murdered in the US as today. Violent crime is on the large decreasing over the last few decades And the restrictions the left continually wants to put in place typically have little to nothing to do with handguns which account for the vast majority of gun violence. Knives kill considerably more than all long guns (shotguns + rifles combined). Some ~30% of Americans (80-100,000,000 people) own guns and they account for ~12000 murders and ~23000 suicides. In light of this, when compared to other liberties that harm us, they do relatively little harm. On the other hand ~34 million Americans smoke, tobacco is responsible for ~480,000 deaths a year (40-50,000 innocent people due to second hand smoke) and no Democrat is running on a platform of further restricting tobacco rights. Can you show that the restrictions you want will help with the problem and not just harm legal gun owners? Or do you think the answer is to get rid of the 2A altogether?
Click to expand...

Sure thing!

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-014-9865-8

Using death certificate data available through 2010, the repeal of Missouri’s PTP law was associated with an increase in annual firearm homicides rates of 1.09 per 100,000 (+23 %) but was unrelated to changes in non-firearm homicide rates.
Click to expand...

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302703

Results. We estimated that the law was associated with a 40% reduction in Connecticut’s firearm homicide rates during the first 10 years that the law was in place. By contrast, there was no evidence for a reduction in nonfirearm homicides.

Conclusions. Consistent with prior research, this study demonstrated that Connecticut’s handgun permit-to-purchase law was associated with a subsequent reduction in homicide rates. As would be expected if the law drove the reduction, the policy’s effects were only evident for homicides committed with firearms.
Click to expand...

I can also show similar effects with suicide risk if you're interested. Now that you're armed with this new information and are surely a person who reasons logically rather than emotionally how does this information change your opinion about gun laws?
 
Yet another nutjob, inflamed by right wing propaganda, shoots up a public place. No doubt the 'conservative media' whose irresponsible rhetoric drove him over the edge is again laying the blame on the usual scapegoats of antifa and Bernie.
 
fskimospy said:
Sure thing!

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11524-014-9865-8



https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302703



I can also show similar effects with suicide risk if you're interested. Now that you're armed with this new information and are surely a person who reasons logically rather than emotionally how does this information change your opinion about gun laws?
Click to expand...
Slow doesn't care about this shooting because as far as he's concerned, an RWNJ shooting up a festival of liberals in California = good shoot.
 
SlowSpyder said:
I can't say I agree. In the 90's nearly 2x as many people were murdered in the US as today. Violent crime is on the large decreasing over the last few decades And the restrictions the left continually wants to put in place typically have little to nothing to do with handguns which account for the vast majority of gun violence. Knives kill considerably more than all long guns (shotguns + rifles combined). Some ~30% of Americans (80-100,000,000 people) own guns and they account for ~12000 murders and ~23000 suicides. In light of this, when compared to other liberties that harm us, they do relatively little harm. On the other hand ~34 million Americans smoke, tobacco is responsible for ~480,000 deaths a year (40-50,000 innocent people due to second hand smoke) and no Democrat is running on a platform of further restricting tobacco rights. Can you show that the restrictions you want will help with the problem and not just harm legal gun owners? Or do you think the answer is to get rid of the 2A altogether?
Click to expand...

Here's a problem: that doesn't mean Democrats don't want more restrictions on tobacco, just that it's not their main platform. And do you really think Republicans would take action, given that they're considerably more likely to take bribes from the tobacco industry?

For that matter, you certainly shouldn't expect Republicans to take action on mental health, or domestic violence prevention, or... so the hilarious irony is that you still have to vote Democrat if you want the best chance to make a difference, even if you don't want them to touch guns.
 
Vic said:
Slow doesn't care about this shooting because as far as he's concerned, an RWNJ shooting up a festival of liberals in California = good shoot.
Click to expand...

Even if he thinks this shooting is bad the odds of empirical evidence swaying his opinion are basically zero because he doesn't think that way. Evidence doesn't matter, it's all about the feels and he feels like he must defend gun ownership.
 
Commodus said:
Here's a problem: that doesn't mean Democrats don't want more restrictions on tobacco, just that it's not their main platform. And do you really think Republicans would take action, given that they're considerably more likely to take bribes from the tobacco industry?

For that matter, you certainly shouldn't expect Republicans to take action on mental health, or domestic violence prevention, or... so the hilarious irony is that you still have to vote Democrat if you want the best chance to make a difference, even if you don't want them to touch guns.
Click to expand...

Don't fall for Slow's trolling. He knows full well that Democrats and liberals are the only reason that anything has ever been done about smoking and 2nd hand smoke (ie banning smoking in public places), and that all of that was done over the objections of Republicans and conservatives.
 
More innocent lives sacrificed to the 2nd Amendment God. His worshipers sure are loyal and keep him happy with unsuspecting souls.

I wonder if those worshiping this God would be willing to sacrifice one of their own loved ones to the cause?
 
fskimospy said:
Even if he thinks this shooting is bad the odds of empirical evidence swaying his opinion are basically zero because he doesn't think that way. Evidence doesn't matter, it's all about the feels and he feels like he must defend gun ownership.
Click to expand...
This must be true, because to a rational mind, it's not defending gun ownership to defend the circumstances that led to someone shooting up a crowd, or to belittle that tragedy with irrelevant and unrelated statistics.
 
SlowSpyder said:
No, I have a few guns, I shoot maybe a few times a year. I doubt I will ever need my guns for a self defense situation and keep them unloaded and stored at my house. I don't want any innocent victims of gun crimes any more than you do. I just don't blame the method, I blame the person causing the harm. And in America, our ways to address problems shouldn't be to continue to erode constitutional rights. People that want to kill and have an opportunity to attack unsuspecting victims by surprise will kill.
Click to expand...
You are just shifting the same fear to a different source. The right to bear arms is rooted in the fear of somebody like Trump coming along and turning our hard fought revolution against a king back into another sovereign dictatorship. You can see what a joke that was.

While the constitution was set up to preserve rights, it also provided a method to amend it where evolving levels of consciousness require it. It was not intended to be worshiped as a static embodiment of ultimate wisdom as the fearful conservative mind craves.

To protect ourselves from the changes in culture, the gun madness that we see today, it is the right of the will of the people to adapt to this new phenomenon of gun slaughter. You are the one with your feet in concrete that wants to limit our constitutional right to change because of your fear of change.

As I said, the blindness to the emotions that create an unconscious bias that prevent objective reason, looks like stupidity to people not so effected, but who are unaware of these things.

Let me demonstrate how I am just like you, crazy. I have guns. I don’t have them handy for self protection. They are useless to me in that sense. But I like owning them and would like to own more. I will never go nuts and shoot anybody either unless, there is some sort of brain tumor that could cause that, but I don’t want the government to take my guns. People who don’t own guns and don’t want anybody to own them are more evolved than I am.

It isn’t guns that kill people it is sick people enamored of killing masses of people with weapons capable of killing just such masses of people that do. So yes, we have mental illness but also ease of availability, both, that need working on. Unfortunately, the mental issues will not easily be addresses because they require knowledge of the last thing anybody wants to know, that we all feel like the worst person in the world. Our pain is enormous and deeply hidden. Are you up to be cured? All you have to do is feel it and see it for the lie that it is.
 
Iron Woode said:
I am going to guess it was gang related.
Click to expand...
I doubt that. Looks like another right wing nutter.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/gilroy-garlic-festival-shooting-suspect-165735444.html

"In his last post, Legan also complained of paved-over nature and towns “overcrowd[ed]” with “hoards of mestizos and Silicon Valley white twats.” Some fascists, particularly those who follow the hyper-egoist school of thought laid out in Legan’s recommended book, criticize industrialization and Silicon Valley lifestyles as “degenerate.” "
 
esquared said:
I doubt that. Looks like another right wing nutter.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/gilroy-garlic-festival-shooting-suspect-165735444.html

"In his last post, Legan also complained of paved-over nature and towns “overcrowd[ed]” with “hoards of mestizos and Silicon Valley white twats.” Some fascists, particularly those who follow the hyper-egoist school of thought laid out in Legan’s recommended book, criticize industrialization and Silicon Valley lifestyles as “degenerate.” "
Click to expand...

Because when I want to kill non-white people and/or liberals... I go to... a garlic festival?
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
Because when I want to kill non-white people and/or liberals... I go to... a garlic festival?
Click to expand...
It's where a high concentration of people are. Plenty of people of all ethnicities at that festival.
It's a big deal in Silicon Valley every year. Sunday's have over 100,000 at the festival.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top