• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

YAMST - Santa Clarita, CA High School

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
23,367
2,640
136
If anything the argument that we can stop criminals from using the best tool possible for practicing their trade via prohibition is a silly and emotional quest for a simple fix to a complex problem. Exactly how will you get guns out of the hands of those who bent on criminal gun violence? Until you answer that, asking the law-abiding to disarm is wishful thinking at best.

Imagine how much you empower the next mass shooter if you guarantee the entire country is a gun free zone for anyone who chooses to obey the law.
This continues to be illogical and irrational rhetoric. Certainly the problem is complex, but not nearly as complex as you're making it out to be.

Why didn't Australia turn into the wild west after regulation?

Guns are already abundant and they haven't stopped mass shooters yet, so that's a rather odd argument to use. The "good guy with a gun" is mythos, by and large.
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
23,367
2,640
136
And, I will finish up today's diatribe by saying this: If you really want to end gun violence, then we need to attack income inequality and the various other reasons so many disenfranchised folks choose gun violence as a method to solve their problems. This vain attempt to control tools has us totally ignoring the actual causes of violence.
I think most of us that support stricter gun control totally agree that we need to work on other social issues as well. Why wouldn't we?
 

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,652
342
136
I think most of us that support stricter gun control totally agree that we need to work on other social issues as well. Why wouldn't we?
I don't know, why don't you?

Every time there is a gun murder thread on AT the discussion is ALWAYS centered on taking guns away. You can pretty much count on a smartass "thoughts and prayers" comment or 2, and a whole bunch of "take away guns" comments. What I can't count on is a discussion that centers on working on the social issues. Some social issues can be corrected easily and in the very short term and they have a massive impact on gun violence. End the war on drugs. Spend money to study the potential link between mind altering prescription drugs and mass shootings and if anything is found then spend money to rectify that link...if nothing is found then cross that off our list and look for the next issue. I fully believe that you can end a lot of gun violence without throwing non-violent Pipeline into prison.

I have yet to see an AT school or Walmart or anything shooting where the usual suspects comment "damn it it's time to end the war on drugs" or "when are we going to find out why young kids will shoot up a school and solve that problem". It's all anger directed at guns and gun owners.
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
23,367
2,640
136
I don't know, why don't you?

Every time there is a gun murder thread on AT the discussion is ALWAYS centered on taking guns away. You can pretty much count on a smartass "thoughts and prayers" comment or 2, and a whole bunch of "take away guns" comments. What I can't count on is a discussion that centers on working on the social issues. Some social issues can be corrected easily and in the very short term and they have a massive impact on gun violence. End the war on drugs. Spend money to study the potential link between mind altering prescription drugs and mass shootings and if anything is found then spend money to rectify that link...if nothing is found then cross that off our list and look for the next issue. I fully believe that you can end a lot of gun violence without throwing non-violent Pipeline into prison.

I have yet to see an AT school or Walmart or anything shooting where the usual suspects comment "damn it it's time to end the war on drugs" or "when are we going to find out why young kids will shoot up a school and solve that problem". It's all anger directed at guns and gun owners.
We do. "We" are constantly combating other social issues. Duh? Do you honestly think there is no social sciences research or programs in place/constantly under development?

What's your weird hang up on "mind altering drugs and mass shootings?" You know what 100% of them have in common? Guns.

You're entire position is illogical and, as usual, driven by emotion. You want your guns because you like them, it's that simple. (I like mine, too, in full disclosure)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muse and purbeast0

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
15,963
3,575
136
Oh, no, not a guess. I did the math using FBI and other government statistics. I even gave your side the benefit of the doubt and included ALL gun injuries and deaths, including stuff like justified use and suicides. I posted my work and begged folks to find any flaws. Nobody has to date.

The numbers don't lie. Do a search, I've posted it in several threads and linked to it over the years repeatedly. If you don't like the facts then show me my error. Or continue to ignore them because they don't fit your narrative.

There are some facts that the anti-gun side chooses to ignore because they have no good answer.

1. The overwhelming majority of gun owners and the guns they own are never used criminally, let alone to hurt another human. If something is commonly in use both legally and safely by the overwhelming majority of users, there is no legal standing for prohibiting it. And to make any argument of banning guns for the greater good, you need at least some evidence that your ban will actually be effective, which the last assault weapons ban proved the exact opposite of.
2. Firearms are the single best tool for self-defense. The right to own them is not granted by the 2A of the constitution. The 2A simply says the government can not infringe upon that natural right.
3. There is no possible way to forcibly remove guns from the criminal/sick/evil folks bent on using them for murder.
4. Criminals will simply ignore your new gun ban laws because they are CRIMINALS.
5. The previous assault weapons ban did zero to decrease gun violence, which is why it as legally expired, and since it's expiration gun violence has gone down.

I'm tired of typing. It's not like your mind isn't already made up. When you come up with a realistic plan that will disarm those who are causing the problem come on back and I'll consider giving mine up too. If you want me to be the first, in hopes that my great-grandchildren may someday enjoy your pie-in-the-sky dream of a gun violence free world, well, I just don't trust you that much.
Great, show me the math, for example how many "ghost" guns are there in the US? How much ammo is in the US? And do you mean you used statistics that republicans have stopped agencies from collecting like the CDC? Your facts are an educated guess at best.
You want my answer to help curb mass shootings? Ban semi-auto weapons and speed loaders and limit ammo sales. Hunters can still hunt, people can still defend themselves and still shoot paper targets.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Muse

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,453
7,399
146
@Paladin3
We’ve had a lot of gun discussions where the term emotional argument gets thrown around. So let’s try and take a non-emotional look at the risk of schools shootings to individuals and a few of the costs associated with them.

  • Last year there were 24 school shootings killing 114 people in K-12
  • There are approximately 132,800 K-12 schools of all types (public, private, charter, etc)
  • With 50.8million students across the US
  • With an average enrollment of 528 kids per public school
  • There are approximately 3.7million public and private k-12 teachers
  • Making an average wage of $28/hour

The risk of being affected by a school shooting:
  • For an individual student or teacher last year ~114/(50.8M + 3.7M) = 0.0002% or 1/500,000
  • For it happening at an individuals school last year ~ 24/132,800 = 0.02% or 1/5000

So does it make rational sense to do something to prevent school shootings?

One tool to evaluate risk that most industries use is a risk matrix.

To understand the risk you have to assign a consequence and a likelihood.
In any industry a fatality is a catastrophic hazard and rates a 5 (right most column)
Figuring the likelihood is a little more difficult. For an individual with a 1 in 500,000 likelihood that would be a very low risk (row 1) and nothing would need to be done by the individual.

However once you start looking at the risk to a school or schools the likelihood becomes more significant. The likelihood of 1 in 5000 risk to an individual school would be enough to bump the risk from 5x1 to 5x2 or 3.

A school district superintendent whose responsible for many schools (284 as an example from our local urban school district) and that 1 in 5000 risk to school becomes 1 in 20. The chance that one of your schools would be involved in a shooting over the 13 years any given student attends the district then rises to 66%. That’s a 5X5 risk that must have mitigations put in place.

This actually matches well with the aviation industry where if a catastrophic risk occurs anywhere industry wide it would be scored similarly.

Putting mitigations in place makes logical sense. For schools that mean active shooter drills and making schools harder targets.

If we assume every school will have one active shooter drill a year and they cost roughly one hour of instruction that’s 3.7M teachers x $28/hr x 1hr = $100M of lost instruction time per year. It also necessitates explaining to students why there’s a risk of an active shooter and why they must practice for it

So it looks to me like active shooter drills and telling kids they shouldn’t worry but there is a risk of schools shootings is entirely rational. Oh and that minimum of $100M is another cost of how we handle guns in the US.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,941
126
Yes, always and forever will we refuse to be labeled murderers because it fits your lying narrative.
You're the same sort as when a woman says that men are bastards, you chime in demanding that she clarify that it's not all men.

Telling on yourself doesn't engender any respect.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,941
126
I see what you did there. What the F do white male misogynists have to do with anything?
Since nearly all of the recent mass shooters can be wrapped up in this group... what problem do you have with my labeling it as an issue?
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,941
126
And, I will finish up today's diatribe by saying this: If you really want to end gun violence, then we need to attack income inequality and the various other reasons so many disenfranchised folks choose gun violence as a method to solve their problems. This vain attempt to control tools has us totally ignoring the actual causes of violence.
We can't stop violence. We can stop gun violence by getting rid of guns though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muse

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
876
126
We can't stop violence. We can stop gun violence by getting rid of guns though.
Please, I've begged and begged...please tell me how you plan to accomplish this lofty goal. Even if we sacrifice the 2A, even if we sacrifice the basic right of self-defense, even if we sacrifice our property rights and allow the government to forcefully "buy back" legally owned private property, how the heck do you plan to take guns away from those who are the actual problem if they refuse to play along?

How will making the entire country a gun free zone help when criminals will just laugh at your new laws? Just like they choose to ignore assault and murder laws.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
876
126
Since nearly all of the recent mass shooters can be wrapped up in this group... what problem do you have with my labeling it as an issue?
You're not talking about mass shooters and you know it. You are trying to blame law abiding gun owners for illegal gun violence because we won't go along with your naive goal of "just ban the guns," for which you have no plausible plan.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
876
126
This continues to be illogical and irrational rhetoric. Certainly the problem is complex, but not nearly as complex as you're making it out to be.
Then tell me how you expect a gun ban to disarm those who choose to commit murder. Prohibiting murder hasn't stopped them. What prohibition of any item already in wide spread legal use has ever been successful? Why didn't the last assault weapons bad have any affect on gun violence?
Guns are already abundant and they haven't stopped mass shooters yet, so that's a rather odd argument to use. The "good guy with a gun" is mythos, by and large.
Why do mass shooters always target gun free zones? If you were in an active shooter situation, tell me you wouldn't want to be armed to have at least a chance to defend yourself and/or your family.

EDIT: But the answers to these questions don't even mater. I don't need to prove to you or anyone else why I "need" a gun. YOU have to give US some kind of evidence that your plan to disarm the overwhelmingly law-abiding gun owning population will stop gun violence. Tell me how disarming those who aren't the problem will stop those few who are? Why didn't the last assault weapons ban work?
 
Last edited:

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
23,367
2,640
136
Then tell me how you expect a gun ban to disarm those who choose to commit murder. Prohibiting murder hasn't stopped them. What prohibition of any item already in wide spread legal use has ever been successful? Why didn't the last assault weapons bad have any affect on gun violence?
Answer my question first, why isn't Australia the Wild West? Murders didn't take over there, why would they here?

Why do mass shooters always target gun free zones?
... they don't?

If you were in an active shooter situation, tell me you wouldn't want to be armed to have at least a chance to defend yourself and/or your family.
I would prefer to work on preventing the active shooter situation in the first place, and in the event I were in one, I would do my best to get out of dodge. Engaging in a shoot out is a terrible idea.

EDIT: But the answers to these questions don't even mater. I don't need to prove to you or anyone else why I "need" a gun. YOU have to give US some kind of evidence that your plan to disarm the overwhelmingly law-abiding gun owning population will stop gun violence. Tell me how disarming those who aren't the problem will stop those few who are? Why didn't the last assault weapons ban work?
Because it works everywhere else? Why do you think American guns are so unique? Not to mention I never said anything about a 100% ban. Why are you tilting at straw? Stop being so emotional.
 

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,647
132
106
There's too much fear and aggression here.

Your 2A rights aren't magic. They're granted by people and can be taken away by people. If enough people say no one gets to have a gun, then no one gets to have one. You really going to ignore a buyback program and become a criminal to hold onto a gun? What imbues this specific object with so much sway over you?
That's where you're wrong. Might doesn't make right. We got a whole constitution dedicated to that idea.
 

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,647
132
106
Yeh, ghost guns are all the rage out there on the fringe. It could be shut down readily by banning the sale of 80% lower receivers. They're not a gun, so they're unregulated. Given that, banning their sale wouldn't violate anybody's right to own guns.
Don't you think that would set a dangerous precedent? I mean the idea is that an 80% lower isn't a gun it is just a hunk of metal with some shapes carved in it. So now the government should be able to tell you that you can't buy hunks of metal?
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,145
6,184
136
That's where you're wrong. Might doesn't make right. We got a whole constitution dedicated to that idea.
There are mechanisms in place to amend the Constitution. The founders literally wanted it to be "a living document."
 

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,647
132
106
There are mechanisms in place to amend the Constitution. The founders literally wanted it to be "a living document."
That's true, but I don't think the idea that 'might makes right' will be amended into the constitution. If so the country is lost.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
19,638
10,677
136
That's true, but I don't think the idea that 'might makes right' will be amended into the constitution. If so the country is lost.
Limiting the ability to murder your fellow citizens in wholesale lots isn't exactly amending "might makes right" into the constitution.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
28,640
2,860
126
Please, I've begged and begged...please tell me how you plan to accomplish this lofty goal. Even if we sacrifice the 2A, even if we sacrifice the basic right of self-defense, even if we sacrifice our property rights and allow the government to forcefully "buy back" legally owned private property, how the heck do you plan to take guns away from those who are the actual problem if they refuse to play along?

How will making the entire country a gun free zone help when criminals will just laugh at your new laws? Just like they choose to ignore assault and murder laws.
People who just laugh will not have the last laugh. What's required here is patience. That's not easy for a lot of people to imagine because next week, i.e. a week after a ban is put in place the problem will not be solved yet. It will take time.

What use is a gun if it's illegal to possess it? You can't use it publically without risk of being incarcerated. If you show it to someone, you might be ratted out. It's little use as protection because using it for that purpose would once again probably get you in jail. It would be a liability. So, yeah, after some time (I won't say how much) the guns would disappear, most all of them.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,145
6,184
136
That's true, but I don't think the idea that 'might makes right' will be amended into the constitution. If so the country is lost.
Might makes right is a ridiculous statement anyway. If you are going to define "the majority" as "might" you have basically invalidated all forms of democracy as just another type of dictatorship. Hopefully you see now how insane that would be.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,941
126
Please, I've begged and begged...please tell me how you plan to accomplish this lofty goal. Even if we sacrifice the 2A, even if we sacrifice the basic right of self-defense, even if we sacrifice our property rights and allow the government to forcefully "buy back" legally owned private property, how the heck do you plan to take guns away from those who are the actual problem if they refuse to play along?

How will making the entire country a gun free zone help when criminals will just laugh at your new laws? Just like they choose to ignore assault and murder laws.
Do you know how market forces work?
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,941
126
You're not talking about mass shooters and you know it. You are trying to blame law abiding gun owners for illegal gun violence because we won't go along with your naive goal of "just ban the guns," for which you have no plausible plan.
So you're a gun advocate with a persecution complex? Fascinating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muse and TheVrolok

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
26,989
776
126
Please, I've begged and begged...please tell me how you plan to accomplish this lofty goal. Even if we sacrifice the 2A, even if we sacrifice the basic right of self-defense, even if we sacrifice our property rights and allow the government to forcefully "buy back" legally owned private property, how the heck do you plan to take guns away from those who are the actual problem if they refuse to play along?

How will making the entire country a gun free zone help when criminals will just laugh at your new laws? Just like they choose to ignore assault and murder laws.
I know it's exasperating trying to educate the unteachable. They are so bogged down in their emotions, they are unwilling to accept your factual and accurate arguments. Problem with liberals is when they believe something is bad, they want to impose their will on everyone. Nobody should be allowed to own what they don't like. It's short bus thinking, but you really are wasting your time. Guns are not going anywhere and the 2A is here to stay.
 

mect

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2004
2,133
1,058
136
You're not talking about mass shooters and you know it. You are trying to blame law abiding gun owners for illegal gun violence because we won't go along with your naive goal of "just ban the guns," for which you have no plausible plan.
Yes, law abiding gun owners that are opposed to stricter gun regulations are to blame, because they are a part of a violent culture of America obsessed with guns. I own two guns myself, but they in no way define me. I don't view them as a part of my masculinity. I don't connect them to freedom or patriotism. In other words, I don't worship them. I recognize that banning guns won't end violence. However, I also recognize American's obsession with guns and gun rights is a symptom of a deeper issue revolving around a society that idolizes and worships violence.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
19,638
10,677
136
I know it's exasperating trying to educate the unteachable. They are so bogged down in their emotions, they are unwilling to accept your factual and accurate arguments. Problem with liberals is when they believe something is bad, they want to impose their will on everyone. Nobody should be allowed to own what they don't like. It's short bus thinking, but you really are wasting your time. Guns are not going anywhere and the 2A is here to stay.
Why you hate the straw people?

or

Were you going for irony?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY