Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Another school shooting


Off-Topic Discussions

751 to 800 of 1,152 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>

Kryzbyn wrote:
It's when the ideas border on all firearms being illegal that I disagree,

And at that point, I'd disagree, too. I'd never call for a ban on all civilian ownership of firearms, and I don't know anyone who has. The issue is that a lot of conservatives are convinced that there is an army of people who are calling for such a ban, and that imagined boogeyman has rendered them largely unable to participate in a meaningful conversation about what ought to be done - that's why instead of a conversation about what measures should be taken to ensure that the mentally ill don't get ahold of firearms, we have a conversation over whether or not teachers and children should be allowed to carry weapons in school (and unlike the idea of banning all firearms, people are actually calling for the above).


Yeah, I hear ya.
Some folks see any kind of proposed gun legislation as baby steps towards banning them.
In fairness, Chicago and D.C. did ban them, or try to, until it was overturned by the SCOTUS.
I guess I'm agreeing that the fear is there, and at times it overpowers rational discussion, but it's not totaly baseless.

Me? I'll discuss anything up to that point, within reason.

Shadow Lodge

Kryzbyn wrote:

I own a pistol, a .40 for home defense. That's what I bought it for.

I don't hunt with it. I keep it in it's case in a safe place, unloaded. I am a responsible gun owner. If I were to experience some kind of trauma that made me insane or otherwise unable to remain a responsible gun owner, I would be ok with surrendering it.

Does anyone really argue these points, or think they would remain responsible gun owners if the same were to become true of them?

The problem is twofold

First, the you that is you now, and the you that would be you if you were to experience some kind of trauma that made me insane or otherwise unable to remain a responsible gun owner, may not agree on whether or not you need to give up your gun. The problem is that the now you is the one that doesn't have to but will give up your gun, and the hypothetical crazy "you" is the one that has to give up the gun but is unlikely to posses the wherewithal to make that judgement call.

Secondly that if the pistol is available for you to purchase, then it is available for everyone to purchase. I really don't see the need for pistols for home defense, and their concealability seems to aid in their commissions of crimes more than anything else. There's no mechanism for making the pistol available to you without making it available to criminals.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wicked cool wrote:


<snip>
I would hae loved it if the other night the president came out and said think twice before you let your kids go see the expendables or buy them modern warfare for the holidays. If you see your kids being bulleyed or as a loner reach out to them. Dont let them become isolated and alone. Force them to take part in society. Heres a national number to call if you believe someone is mentally ill.

So the facts are not that more people are getting divorced, more single moms raising kids, poverty isnt rising and drug use is increasing. More pharmacys are not getting robbed for Oxy and its only my imagination that i need my license to buy certain cold medicines. Check your local police log. Ask you parks and recreation people if they are finding more or less heroin needles than they did 5 years ago. More pople havent lost faith in a higher power so it one less thing to be judged on (whether you agree with religion or not it was something that kept people afraid to break the law and many became familiar with others because of it). So whats driving the violence? Society is better as a whole then it was 40 years ago?

When you consider that the overall rate of violence and crime is generally lower across a number of significant categories, we are generally better as a whole than we used to be. And one of the events that the lowering rates of crime seems to correlate with is the legalization of abortion with Roe v Wade. When the age cohort first affected by abortion's legalization hit it's major crime age, crime rates declined. The current hypothesis (as far as I know) is that a larger proportion of kids in that cohort, compared to previous ones, were wanted or at least not resented as much.

wicked cool wrote:
When i was a kid everyone on the street knew who my parents where and many knew me by sight. We played street hockey/baseball or some form of cops/robbers. For the most part parents dont let their kids out of eyesight now. Now you have neighborhoods where you cant identify the guy 6 houses down the street and dont know what he/she does for a living.

Some of this is explained by the general growth of the population. The more people, the fewer in your local area you know well. But some of it has to do with the economy as well. People have to go where the jobs are and jobs are a lot more mobile than they used to be. Makes corporations happy but it does undermine the cohesion of extended families and neighborhoods.

wicked cool wrote:

"Those in favor of revisiting the idea of gun control in this thread have pretty much unanimously been in favor of increasing funding for and societal appreciation of mental health programs and evaluations."

And yet its underfunded and one of the first things to cut.

This has been the trend at least since the Reagan administration and it's definitely tied in with the smaller government proponents. Reduce the size of government and you also reduce the reach and impact of services that turn out to be pretty helpful. There's a substantial amount of demand for mental health services, but it's awfully hard to make them profitable so corporations aren't exactly bursting down the door to get into the market.


I am not from the US but i do not see the point in supporting an old law(Amendment in this case) that do not serve it original purpouse (whatever it was) and/or cause more harm than good.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:


And at that point, I'd disagree, too. I'd never call for a ban on all civilian ownership of firearms, and I don't know anyone who has.

I'd prefer a total ban, but happily settle for heavy regulation. It's nuts that you have to go through more red tape to buy a house or a car than a weapon.

Lantern Lodge

@ Nicos
It does serve it's original purpose, whether I am correct or not about that purpose.
It is no less viable today then when it was written.

It also doesn't do more harm then good.

Yes bad things are done with them, but as they say, "guns don't kill, people kill people."
The number of bad guys with guns, going on killing sprees, is a very slim percentage of the population. Modern technology just makes it easy to find out about such incidents and brodcast them globally.

It's like a saying in the army, "The majority of my time, is consumed by the minority of soldiers."

Same case here, the majority of our attention is spent on the minority of people, and people often forget about that majority of people that don't get attention.

Of course, such crimes are often done to garner attention, and it's sad that they are given it.

I suspect that it is in human nature to seek information about bad things more then good things because learning about bad things gives us more information on how to avoid bad things (of course this makes sense more from an evolutionary standpoint, rather then creationism) so when we focus on bad things we get into discussions about them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
It does serve it's original purpose, whether I am correct or not about that purpose.

No, it really doesn't.

Quote:
It is no less viable today then when it was written.

It very clearly is less viable.

Quote:
It also doesn't do more harm then good.

That is debatable.

Quote:
Yes bad things are done with them, but as they say, "guns don't kill, people kill people."

Why do you keep repeating that? How many times has that been said, followed by us telling you that, sure, people kill people, but guns enable people to kill lots of people in a very short time and inarguably lead to more deaths.

So why do you keep saying it? Do you think we'll suddenly forget that it's idiot-speak designed to be parroted by the sort of person incapable of making that obvious leap of logic regarding how much easier a gun makes it to kill someone?

Quote:
The number of bad guys with guns, going on killing sprees, is a very slim percentage of the population. Modern technology just makes it easy to find out about such incidents and brodcast them globally.

It is a fact that mass shooting incidents have increased in the last few decades. They have actually gone up. We used to have one or two shootings every couple of years in the 80's. This year we've had seven or eight, and there are still two weeks left.

So no, that lie isn't going to work either. Nice try.

Qadira

Andrew R wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
not very tightly regulated at all. I can walk up to anyone selling a car hand them cash and leave with the car and do what i want with it.

No, you can't. When transferring ownership of a motor vehicle, the vehicle's title must be legally transferred along with it. That requires registering the transfer of title with the state Department of Motor Vehicles, and requires said department's approval.

You're either purposefully lying or you don't know what you're talking about but are arrogant enough to think that you do. Both are very good reasons for you to stop.

I have bought enough cars to know i walk up with cash, i drive off with title. I can go ram it into whatever i want and nothing can stop me. if i want to continue to drive it legally yes i need to go register it. but nothing more than cash to GET it.

So you are either ignorant of car buying or just too damn arrogant to see the facts. Both are good reasons to pull your head out of there.

I think I'll call my Ministry of Interior Affairs and ask them to disclose the information on how many schools were assaulted by FLAMING SUICIDE CARS OF DEATH in the last 100 years.

I bloody hope they take that request seriously.

How many times has a jet been a weapon?

How many died on 9-11?

Actually on September 8 2001 I concluded that to be a weak point in the US anti terrorism strategy - if a terrorist can go inside the borders and source a low security clearance weapon of mass destruction they could hit anywhere in the USA in a High Security area by launching from an adjacent low security area.

You could probably stand in the middle of Joco Marsh in New York City under the Airplanes taking off from JFK and shoot one down right now.

You just need to know where the weaknesses are. That's how solutions are Found and Anti Terrorism protection is built. If you really want it - total surveillance. An omni directional Police Camera on the roof of every bus, taxi, car, rooftop watching you take a poop, or having sex with your girlfriend/bloke, or walk down the street.

Shadow Lodge

Samnell wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


And at that point, I'd disagree, too. I'd never call for a ban on all civilian ownership of firearms, and I don't know anyone who has.
I'd prefer a total ban, but happily settle for heavy regulation. It's nuts that you have to go through more red tape to buy a house or a car than a weapon.

I'm not sure if i trust the police or the criminals quite THAT much.


Scott Betts wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Are we arguing policy based on a statistically insignificant portion of all murders?
Restricting firearms ownership to those of sound mind would unquestionably make the country safer. The fact that the type of murder that is spurring this to action makes up a small percentage of overall murders is not important. Something needed to provide the impetus.

It is important. What you're suggesting is intellectually dishonest.


Killer_GM wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Are we arguing policy based on a statistically insignificant portion of all murders?
Restricting firearms ownership to those of sound mind would unquestionably make the country safer. The fact that the type of murder that is spurring this to action makes up a small percentage of overall murders is not important. Something needed to provide the impetus.
It is important. What you're suggesting is intellectually dishonest.

No, it's not.

Imagine that there are a thousand different crimes or types of killing that can be committed with a gun. That's an exaggeration, of course, but whatever. Imagine a thousand different ways guns can be used to harm. Now imagine that a hundred people are harmed, every year, by each of those thousand types of gun crimes.

Now, every time one of those gun crimes are committed, imagine someone says, "Hey, maybe it's about time we did something about guns." And imagine that every time someone said that, someone else said, "The type of crime you're piggybacking off of makes up one-tenth of one percent of all gun-related harm! It's statistically insignificant!"

Does that sound intellectually honest, to you, Killer_GM? So what if only twenty people died this time? So what if mass shootings only account for a tiny number of deaths (as though any number of preventable deaths can be seen as tiny)? If we listened to people like you, nothing would ever get done. And, to our tremendous shame, we have been listening to people like you, for years now.


Betts, for the sake of time I can't specifically respond to each thing you commented on regarding prior post(s) that I made, on your Saturday evening post. I'll attempt to address them in the following:

Yes, I did work at the Senate, and enjoyed it immensely. Though I disagree with the Majority Leader of the Senate on a number of issues, he is one of the nicest people you'll ever come across in Washington. I was previously the president of a University College Democrats organization. I've had experience with politicians and activists on both the left and on the right. Politically, I am an independent.

Regarding "mental illness," consider who decides what is considered ‘mental illness’? The APA (American Psychological/ Psychiatric Association) does, and in an indirect sense, society and American culture do. Historically & Currently. The APA are capable of Being swayed (and historically have been) by outside factors, and the culture at large. Thirty some years ago, homosexuality was Recognized by the APA as a mental illness, and classified so in the DSM with a mental health diagnosis. Would you support that diagnosis? Probably not. The APA, just like any other group of people are fallable and able to be swayed by The times and circumstances, and the culture they find themselves surrounded by. They also are not elected Officials, and I have concerns about their findings being used as justification to create legislation that will limit the freedoms of law abiding citizens. Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't guarentee the right to keep and bear arms, only if you pass a mental health exam, or can prove that you always keep your gun in a gun locker/safe. Any responsible person should want to do that (law or no law), but I don't agree that you can legally make this a criteria for gun ownership. Additionally, how would you "force" anyone to get mental health treatment or follow up and verify that they have/are "in treatment" so that they can keep their firearm? How would you have Firearm ownership privilidges restored, if they have previously been taken away?

But notwithstanding whether the APA is right or wrong, those who favor gun control are seldom even attempting to justify why they would use a Definition (past or present) that the APA comes up with for mental illness to try to legislate guns. If the gun control advocates or the government want to deem ADHD (DSM Code 314.01), or "Parent/Child Relational problem" (DSM-Code v61.20), or Adjustment Disorder (DSM-Code 309) for minor problems or transitional issues, as ‘Mental Disorders’ to deny people their gun rights; and there are enough votes in Congress to pass it, who is stopping them? Only the Supreme Court. And depending on who's currently on the bench, that may be a rubber stamp for the folks on the left or the right.

With the changes in diagnoses we are seeing in the psychiatric/psychological community, soon 25-35% Of the U.S. population may well have a "chronic mental health diagnosis". Even more significant, ANYONE could potentially have a 'diagnosis', if you were to deem short term stressors or crisis, or minor mental health conditions as ‘mental disorders.’ Short-term stressors and brief crises already have diagnostic Codes in the DSM-IV/TR, as do minor diagnoses (like the three examples I just listed above). And more could be forthcoming in the DSM 5 which is due out in a year or two. The potential here exists for gun control advocates or the government to decide that anyone with, for example ADHD, shouldn’t have access to firearms. The potential for the U.S. Government to then arbitrarily determine that huge segments of the US population are “mentally unfit or higher risk” to own firearms is not such a stretch as one might think or hope, if there is enough public fervor to motivate a lot of less-than-inspired politicians to go along with it in hopes of re-election or political capital.

You previously mentioned the notion of "blame anything but the guns." I suspect that there are those who fit that label, though I don't think I qualify for that honor. I would pose the question to you, of whether or not you are a ‘blame nothing but the guns’ person yourself. Or am I misunderstanding you? The fact that many people (whether or not you are one is incidental) will not even consider that the movies, music, video games, the lack of morality/religion, or other factors in the culture at large, could be contributing factors to these mass killings/shootings should be equally troubling (and in my judgment) a more troubling phenomena. There have been 6 incidents of mass murder at schools in China since the year 2010. None of those incidents involved the use of firearms. Knives were the weapons used in all 6 incidents. A total of 21 children were killed in those six incidents in China. Forgive the smart-ass question, but how would gun control laws have stopped those?

I think that there are a lot of angry and bad people in the USA and abroad, who think they are justified in harming others, just because life sucks or to get what they want, whatever that might happen to be. Numerous incidents of mass violence, both with and without guns, have occurred for decades. Gun control laws address one type of weapon used to commit this violence, rather than the larger picture. "Mental illness" is another factor in that picture. Many who focus on mental illness as the primary cause of gun violence seem to be primarily concerned with society's perceived view of the perpetrator himself and his mental/psychological reason(s) for harming others exclusively, and in the process largely ignore (intentionally or not) everything else in society that may be influencing the individual. Hence, it's almost as if hard-core gun control proponents "don't want" there to be any other factors that contribute to murderous behaviors, because that would require society to take a look at those other factors, that we don't particularly want to look at or acknowledge.

Chuck Shumer-D New York is one senator who wants total elimination of private firearms. Bernie Sanders-I Vermont, is probably another. They won’t state that in public, because to do so is not viewed politically favorable, even in heavily progressive states like New York & Vermont. But I've heard and seen enough from politicians, constituents, activists and lobbyists to convince me that some politicians do have that as their ultimate goal in mind. They do it incrementally, passing new gun laws, and then not enforcing the ones they’ve passed. When the next tragedy happens, then come more calls for gun control laws. Would it surprise you that in the first 4 years of the Obama administration, prosecution of gun crimes are DOWN by 40%. It shouldn’t. That’s the strategy. It was used during Bill Clinton’s time in Washington also. There was a two year period during that time when there were only about two dozen federal prosecutions of federal gun charge violations. Despite his calls for greater gun control, including a new assault weapons ban that extends to handguns, President Obama's administration has turned away from enforcing gun laws, cutting weapons prosecutions some 40 percent since a high of about 11,000 under former President Bush. If you are not going to enforce the laws on the books, why are we talking about a whole new wave of new laws. Admittedly, the conservatives are similar on other issues. They will give you a mainstream, sensible rationale for the actions they take, but yet harbor much deeper agendas for why they do what they do, because they don’t want to be viewed as “extremists,” even though they are (that may or may not be a bad thing, depending on the issue in question.)


And though he's not a politician, he's got a show and people listen to him. MSNBC host Ed Schultz stated “Why should anyone own an assault rifle ?” and followed it up by saying “it's the confiscation of these types of weapons that counts and will have an impact.” He continued with, “The NRA needs to state the case why assault weapons are needed by anyone,” and “a Glock pistol qualifies as an assault weapon," which is new to gun owners and Congress which didn’t include handguns in its previous assault weapons ban.

Schultz talked of changing the Constitution, stating “We are the Constitution and we as a people can change whatever we want. Get ready Dude !”

Shadow Lodge

Killer GM wrote:
There have been 6 incidents of mass murder at schools in China since the year 2010. None of those incidents involved the use of firearms. Knives were the weapons used in all 6 incidents. A total of 21 children were killed in those six incidents in China. Forgive the smart-ass question, but how would gun control laws have stopped those?

You're answering your own question.

Its not about stopping an incident its about saving lives. All six incidents combined killed fewer people than one tragedy with a high powered semi automatic rifle. Eliminating guns would result in fewer deaths, if not no deaths. You can't expect an all or nothing result or argue as if anyone else is expecting an all or nothing result.

Quote:
Chuck Shumer-D New York is one senator who wants total elimination of private firearms. Bernie Sanders-I Vermont, is probably another. They won’t state that in public, because to do so is not viewed politically favorable, even in heavily progressive states like New York & Vermont. But I've heard and seen enough from politicians, constituents, activists and lobbyists to convince me that some politicians do have that as their ultimate goal in mind

You think someone against a politician is a more reliable source about what that politician wants than the politician himself?

What precisely is it that you're seeing there?


BigNorseWolf wrote:


You think someone against a politician is a more reliable source about what that politician wants than the politician himself?

What precisely is it that you're seeing there?

I'm speaking to what the Senator from New York has stated over his career in the Senate, some of which I was there to personally hear him state. Furthmore, passing laws, which you then don't enforce, and only respond by calling for more laws, suggests to me that the end goal is passing laws as much as it is stopping behavior.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Killer_GM wrote:
Regarding "mental illness," consider who decides what is considered ‘mental illness’? The APA (American Psychological/ Psychiatric Association) does, and in an indirect sense, society and American culture do. Historically & Currently. The APA are capable of Being swayed (and historically have been) by outside factors, and the culture at large. Thirty some years ago, homosexuality was Recognized by the APA as a mental illness, and classified so in the DSM with a mental health diagnosis. Would you support that diagnosis? Probably not. The APA, just like any other group of people are fallable and able to be swayed by The times and circumstances, and the culture they find themselves surrounded by.

Absolutely. And that doesn't faze me at all. The possibility of being swayed by decidedly non-medical information does not make me less confident in the consensus of the field of psychiatric health. And yes, of course older guidelines (homosexuality being the most notorious) have been revised. We are constantly learning new things. Again, why should this bother me? What about the process of refining a field's understanding suddenly makes that field incapable of offering anything useful?

We already use DSM diagnoses to determine proper care. All we're discussing is extending the use of those diagnoses to approve or bar firearm possession.

Quote:
They also are not elected Officials,

Thank goodness.

Quote:
and I have concerns about their findings being used as justification to create legislation that will limit the freedoms of law abiding citizens.

I don't. I put faith in the ability of expert consensus to inform public policy.

Of course, so do you. You rely on expert consensus without question in dozens of aspects of your day-to-day life. You just have "concern" about this particular field's expert consensus because you are wary of what that consensus might be, not because there's any valid reason to doubt it.

Again, fear.

Quote:
Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't guarentee the right to keep and bear arms, only if you pass a mental health exam, or can prove that you always keep your gun in a gun locker/safe.

So what?

The Constitution doesn't say, "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed unless those arms are nuclear arms," either, but I very much doubt you're in favor of private citizen ownership of nuclear weapons.

The Constitution isn't sacred. Stop acting like it is. It's a document, and it was designed to be altered and is open to reinterpretation as the realities of the evolving world demand.

Quote:
Any responsible person should want to do that (law or no law), but I don't agree that you can legally make this a criteria for gun ownership.

Except you very clearly can, legally. There is at least one clear path to enacting such a law, legally, and potentially many others.

Quote:
Additionally, how would you "force" anyone to get mental health treatment

You don't force treatment. You enforce a clean mental bill of health. If they don't have one, they cannot be sold a firearm. If they don't receive a clean mental bill of health, the choice of whether or not to pursue treatment is up to them.

Quote:
or follow up and verify that they have/are "in treatment" so that they can keep their firearm?

You don't grant them ownership of a firearm until they have been re-evaluated and pronounced healthy enough to own a weapon.

Quote:
How would you have Firearm ownership privilidges restored, if they have previously been taken away?

By instituting a mandatory waiting period between re-evaluations, and requiring a re-evaluation to establish proper mental health.

You're a mental health professional. These are pretty obvious guidelines. Why aren't you capable coming up with them?

Quote:
But notwithstanding whether the APA is right or wrong, those who favor gun control are seldom even attempting to justify why they would use a Definition (past or present) that the APA comes up with for mental illness to try to legislate guns. If the gun control advocates or the government want to deem ADHD (DSM Code 314.01), or "Parent/Child Relational problem" (DSM-Code v61.20), or Adjustment Disorder (DSM-Code 309) for minor problems or transitional issues, as ‘Mental Disorders’ to deny people their gun rights; and there are enough votes in Congress to pass it, who is stopping them? Only the Supreme Court. And depending on who's currently on the bench, that may be a rubber stamp for the folks on the left or the right.

Right, so we have to establish guidelines for what mental ailments (and what severity) justifies revoking the individual's ability to own a firearm. That's why we (ostensibly) work to compromise.

Quote:
With the changes in diagnoses we are seeing in the psychiatric/psychological community, soon 25-35% Of the U.S. population may well have a "chronic mental health diagnosis".

That is unsurprising. Why should we expect that nearly everyone be free of mental health problems when we know painfully well that nearly everyone has some kind of non-acute physical health problem come up at some point in their life?

Quote:
Even more significant, ANYONE could potentially have a 'diagnosis', if you were to deem short term stressors or crisis, or minor mental health conditions as ‘mental disorders.’ Short-term stressors and brief crises already have diagnostic Codes in the DSM-IV/TR, as do minor diagnoses (like the three examples I just listed above).

So establish an appeals or second-opinion process that would allow someone receiving a not-approved status to be evaluated over a longer period of time, or to seek the opinion of a second mental health professional.

All of these are, again, very obvious solutions. You should be able to think of them yourself, instead of acting like they don't exist.

Quote:
And more could be forthcoming in the DSM 5 which is due out in a year or two. The potential here exists for gun control advocates or the government to decide that anyone with, for example ADHD, shouldn’t have access to firearms.

We could decide that. Personally, I don't think it's a very good standard, but I'm not a mental health professional and I don't sit on the DSM publishing committee of the APA.

Quote:
The potential for the U.S. Government to then arbitrarily determine that huge segments of the US population are “mentally unfit or higher risk” to own firearms is not such a stretch as one might think or hope, if there is enough public fervor to motivate a lot of less-than-inspired politicians to go along with it in hopes of re-election or political capital.

The idea that the United States public would demand that huge segments of the US population be declared mentally unfit to own firearms could ever happen is a fantasy (I'm starting to see a lot of those in this thread). If anything, gun control advocates will have to fight tooth-and-nail for even the most basic mental health requirement laws.

Quote:
You previously mentioned the notion of "blame anything but the guns." I suspect that there are those who fit that label, though I don't think I qualify for that honor. I would pose the question to you, of whether or not you are a ‘blame nothing but the guns’ person yourself.

You might get away with that, if I haven't stated multiple times that we need to have a greater focus on mental health, combined with getting rid of the crazy-town connection between ultra-nationalism and firearm ownership. In other words, I have clearly laid blame at the feet of our sad perspective on mental health as well as our crazy culture, in addition to the prevalence of guns. How have you missed this?

Quote:
Or am I misunderstanding you? The fact that many people (whether or not you are one is incidental) will not even consider that the movies, music, video games, the lack of morality/religion, or other factors in the culture at large, could be contributing factors to these mass killings/shootings should be equally troubling (and in my judgment) a more troubling phenomena.

We considered all of that stuff decades ago. Then we realized that all of those "reasons" are really, really dumb and have tatters for evidence to back them up.

It's not that we won't consider them. It's that we already did, and once we finished laughing we moved on to real problems.

Quote:
There have been 6 incidents of mass murder at schools in China since the year 2010. None of those incidents involved the use of firearms. Knives were the weapons used in all 6 incidents. A total of 21 children were killed in those six incidents in China. Forgive the smart-ass question, but how would gun control laws have stopped those?

Did you miss where we explained that a bunch of Chinese children were attacked by a slasher the same day the shootings in Connecticut happened, and no one died? The point isn't that people won't be violent. It's that, when they do become violent, they won't be anywhere near as successful.

You are your own best counter-argument.

Quote:
I think that there are a lot of angry and bad people in the USA and abroad, who think they are justified in harming others, just because life sucks or to get what they want, whatever that might happen to be. Numerous incidents of mass violence, both with and without guns, have occurred for decades. Gun control laws address one type of weapon used to commit this violence, rather than the larger picture. "Mental illness" is another factor in that picture. Many who focus on mental illness as the primary cause of gun violence seem to be primarily concerned with society's perceived view of the perpetrator himself and his mental/psychological reason(s) for harming others exclusively, and in the process largely ignore (intentionally or not) everything else in society that may be influencing the individual. Hence, it's almost as if hard-core gun control proponents "don't want" there to be any other factors that contribute to murderous behaviors, because that would require society to take a look at those other factors, that we don't particularly want to look at or acknowledge.

So it's your assertion that the "hard-core" (lol) gun proponents in this thread haven't bothered to raise the issue of mental health?

Really?

You want to go there?

Because I WILL go back through this thread and find you every post where one of us mentioned that we need to focus on mental health, if that's what it takes to get through to you.

Quote:
Chuck Shumer-D New York is one senator who wants total elimination of private firearms.

Yeah, no.

Senator Chuck Schumer wrote:
"I think we can get something done, I think we have to do things that protect the Second Amendment rights of legitimate gun owners."


I'm not going to sift through this whole thread, but has anyone advocated the use of less-than-lethal weapons like bear mace? I'm not for grabbing guns but I do think mace is more practical both because friendly fire won't likely be as lethal and because most people (sane, untrained) won't want to shoot anyone.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
Quote:
and I have concerns about their findings being used as justification to create legislation that will limit the freedoms of law abiding citizens.

I don't. I put faith in the ability of expert consensus to inform public policy.

Of course, so do you. You rely on expert consensus without question in dozens of aspects of your day-to-day life. You just have "concern" about this particular field's expert consensus because you are wary of what that consensus might be, not because there's any valid reason to doubt it.

Again, fear

I agree with your point generally, that conservative politics are generally based around trying to scare the hell out of people, but someone questioning whether they'd agree with the policy recommendations of a group hardly rises to the level of 'ermahgerd, muslims!'


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
Killer_GM wrote:
You previously mentioned the notion of "blame anything but the guns." I suspect that there are those who fit that label, though I don't think I qualify for that honor. I would pose the question to you, of whether or not you are a ‘blame nothing but the guns’ person yourself. Or am I misunderstanding you? The fact that many people (whether or not you are one is incidental) will not even consider that the movies, music, video games, the lack of morality/religion, or other factors in the culture at large, could be contributing factors to these mass killings/shootings should be equally troubling (and in my judgment) a more troubling phenomena. There have been 6 incidents of mass murder at schools in China since the year 2010. None of those incidents involved the use of firearms. Knives were the weapons used in all 6 incidents. A total of 21 children were killed in those six incidents in China. Forgive the smart-ass question, but how would gun control laws have stopped those?

Other contributing factors would be:

Great income inequality.
Poverty.
Less access to health care - both physical and mental.
Stigma related to mental illnesses.
A smaller or no social security net.

Incidentally, those are all factors the US and your example of China have in common.

Now, the inverse of that would be e.g. Scandinavia.
Fairly strict gun laws - mostly hunting weapons available and you have to take classes and pass a test to get your hunting and weapon license. Some very narrow professions are able to obtain handguns.
You also have to get a permit to obtain any bladed weapon larger than 7 cm (about 3 inches), at least here in Denmark - it's not that hard to get, but there are disqualifiers.
Less income inequality (although it's risen a bit during some right-of-center governments).
Less poverty.
Greater access to free health care - both physical and mental.
The stigma regarding mental illness is still too prevalent - that's unfortunately something we have in common.
A much larger social security net.
Oh, very secular populations too, as opposed to the very religious US - so there goes your blaming of "the lack of morality/religion" out the window too.
The result? Much, much, much less gun violence. Lower crime statistics in general.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

Just a very real reminder to those of you who style yourself a self-made Rambo type who could easily take down any shooter you come across or who clamour for arming more people, including teachers and such:
Concealed Carry permit holders live in a dream world (VIDEO)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GentleGiant wrote:

Just a very real reminder to those of you who style yourself a self-made Rambo type who could easily take down any shooter you come across or who clamour for arming more people, including teachers and such:

Concealed Carry permit holders live in a dream world (VIDEO)

That seems like a super-unbiased source.


I don't buy Schumer's statement, because I don't believe he means it, he won't follow through on it, and he's previously stated the opposite time and time again. You can ridicule me for saying that, but hard core Dems and Republicans do this routinely. I've seen it for twenty plus years. But I tell you what, try enforcing the existing laws on the books, which you neglected to address in your recent post, and let's see if those do in fact work, before passing any new laws. Only makes sense, and as the government has previously shown, they likely won't enfore many, if any, new laws they pass henceforth either. Maybe the existing laws will work. Can't say they won't if you don't try first.


No, I am not asserting that gun control proponants are not pushing for mental health treatment/recognition. You and others on the boards have clearly done that throughout the discussion.


GentleGiant wrote:

Now, the inverse of that would be e.g. Scandinavia.
Fairly strict gun laws - mostly hunting weapons available and you have to take classes and pass a test to get your hunting and weapon license. Some very narrow professions are able to obtain handguns.
You also have to get a permit to obtain any bladed weapon larger than 7 cm (about 3 inches), at least here in Denmark - it's not that hard to get, but there are disqualifiers.
Less income inequality (although it's risen a bit during some right-of-center governments).
Less poverty.
Greater access to free health care - both physical and mental.
The stigma regarding mental illness is still too prevalent - that's unfortunately something we have in common.
A much larger social...

Giant, Hvordan stor de tils. I've got family in Norsk and Sweden. Does it not bother you that your government can tell you whether or not you are allowed to have a measly three-inch bladed knife? Do you really want your government to have that kind of power and authority over you?

Less poverty? You pay 60%+ in federal income tax. What's the point of going to work when 2/3 of your money goes to someone else. Living there, I'd opt to sit at home and watch the Swedish bikini team, instead of going to work. And at 60%+, i wouldn't have enough to pay the divorce attorney when my wife caught me looking at the Swedish bikini team... and it isn't FREE. You pay for your health care. 60%+ of your gross pay from your job pays for it, and for the "free" health care of everyone else who doesn't work.

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

In general, we're not talking about disqualifing ownership based on any given diagnosis from the bookl

We're talking about haveing been determined to be a risk to yourself or others. We're talking about what understand exists in California were a therapist can call the CADoJ and place a psych hold or recomend someone for a 72 hour evaluation.

As opposed to the current standard of having been involentarily committed (which may or may not have anything to do with being a threat to yourself or others, or even having a mental illness at all) or being judged mentally defective. Whatever that means.


Krensky wrote:

In general, we're not talking about disqualifing ownership based on any given diagnosis from the bookl

We're talking about haveing been determined to be a risk to yourself or others. We're talking about what understand exists in California were a therapist can call the CADoJ and place a psych hold or recomend someone for a 72 hour evaluation.

As opposed to the current standard of having been involentarily committed (which may or may not have anything to do with being a threat to yourself or others, or even having a mental illness at all) or being judged mentally defective. Whatever that means.

You may not be talking about any specific diagnosis disqualifying anyone from gun ownership, but that doesn't mean that our friends in Washington won't be. And do understand, if the word Schizophrenia, Bipolar, Antisocial PD, Avoidant PD, or any of a number of "serious" diagnoses are on a person, someone will deem you "unfit" to have a gun. Whether or not you're currently needing a TDO/Committment won't matter, though anyone meeting TDO criteria would certainly be prohibited from gun ownership, and I wouldn't even necessarily oppose temporarily "removing" firearms from someone who meets criteria for a TDO (Temporary Detainment Order). If someone meets TDO criteria, they are a risk to harm themselves and/or others, and clearly shouldn't have guns. Existing laws on the books already address this. Whether or not these are enforced probably varies. They (the laws) may vary from state to state also. I'd also favor existing laws which temporarily deny gun ownership to anyone convicted of domestic violence against a spouse or a partner, as those individuals are "more likely" to use a weapon in the immediate aftermath of being arrested.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Killer_GM wrote:


Less poverty? You pay 60%+ in federal income tax. What's the point of going to work when 2/3 of your money goes to someone else. Living there, I'd opt to sit at home and watch the Swedish bikini team, instead of going to work.

That probably says more about you compared to the Swedes than you would like because it's not flattering. I guess they're just more industrious than you are.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Killer_GM wrote:


You may not be talking about any specific diagnosis disqualifying anyone from gun ownership, but that doesn't mean that our friends in Washington won't be. And do understand, if the word Schizophrenia, Bipolar, Antisocial PD, Avoidant PD, or any of a number of "serious" diagnoses are on a person, someone will deem you "unfit" to have a gun. Whether or not you're currently needing a TDO/Committment won't matter, though anyone meeting TDO criteria would certainly be prohibited from gun ownership, and I wouldn't even necessarily oppose temporarily "removing" firearms from someone who meets criteria for a TDO (Temporary Detainment Order). If someone meets TDO criteria, they are a risk to harm themselves and/or others, and clearly shouldn't have guns. Existing laws on the books already address this. Whether or not these are enforced probably varies. They (the laws) may vary from state to state also. I'd also favor existing laws which temporarily deny gun ownership to anyone convicted of domestic violence against a spouse or a partner, as those individuals are "more likely" to use a weapon in the immediate aftermath of being arrested.

Of course they'll be looking at specific diagnoses or legal rulings for the regulations. They have to be as specific as they can be. That's kind of the way the law has to work to be reasonable and fair. In Wisconsin, we at least take a slightly broader approach and will deny a handgun purchase to anyone who has been committed to a mental institution, been treated for alcoholism, been judged mentally ill, is a felon, or has been charged with domestic abuse. Unfortunately, we don't seem to close the circuit and remove handgun authorization for anyone who comes to fall into one of these categories later... except maybe the felon one.


Killer_GM wrote:


Giant, Hvordan stor de tils. I've got family in Norsk and Sweden. Does it not bother you that your government can tell you whether or not you are allowed to have a measly three-inch bladed knife? Do you really want your government to have that kind of power and authority over you?

I do not see how not having a 4-inch knife is a great loss compared to safety of that society. I mean the goverment DO have power an authority over you.

You have a car but there are speed limits, you can drink bur only afther certain age, you can smoke marih... (oh wait), etc.

Ido not see how the "right" to have weapons, particulary high powered weapons, can be so important to some people.

Taldor

mordion wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:

Just a very real reminder to those of you who style yourself a self-made Rambo type who could easily take down any shooter you come across or who clamour for arming more people, including teachers and such:

Concealed Carry permit holders live in a dream world (VIDEO)
That seems like a super-unbiased source.

Translation: not by Faux News

Shadow Lodge

Killer_GM wrote:


I'm speaking to what the Senator from New York has stated over his career in the Senate, some of which I was there to personally hear him state.

What exactly did he say?

Quote:
Furthmore, passing laws, which you then don't enforce, and only respond by calling for more laws, suggests to me that the end goal is passing laws as much as it is stopping behavior.

The senate does not actually enforce the laws, thats the job of the executive.

Could you answer the point about people with knives obviously being not effective, even by your own numbers?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Guy Humual wrote:
Translation: not by Faux News

A very bad translation. I never watch Fox, and get most of my news from NPR. Look at website of the group that did that study, and tell me if you honestly think they're unbiased on the matter.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
Killer_GM wrote:

Giant, Hvordan stor de tils. I've got family in Norsk and Sweden. Does it not bother you that your government can tell you whether or not you are allowed to have a measly three-inch bladed knife? Do you really want your government to have that kind of power and authority over you?

Less poverty? You pay 60%+ in federal income tax. What's the point of going to work when 2/3 of your money goes to someone else. Living there, I'd opt to sit at home and watch the Swedish bikini team, instead of going to work. And at 60%+, i wouldn't have enough to pay the divorce attorney when my wife caught me looking at the Swedish bikini team... and it isn't FREE. You pay for your health care. 60%+ of your gross pay from your job pays for it, and for the "free" health care of everyone else who doesn't work.

First of all, I have to make a correction. You need a permit for bladed weapons exceeding the length of 12 cm (5 inches) that are not meant for "normal" uses, normal uses would be kitchen knives, knives for hunting/fishing/diving, tools (like cutting up rockwool or similar items) etc. And in those case you can only carry those knives around while doing those specific tasks or going to and from them (i.e. on your way out hunting, while working or on your way to work, in your home etc.).

The 7 cm (3 inch) blade is the max length of e.g. pocket knives you can carry around with you (you don't need a permit for those - although the pocket knife can't be lockable).
So you need the permit for longer blades (over 5 inches) that aren't covered by the above examples, so for e.g. kukris, swords, bayonettes etc.

Does it bother me that I can't carry around a those kind of large blades? No, not at all, I have absolutely no use for those in an every day setting. Nor do I have any use for a firearm in the same kind of settings.
If I want to shoot a gun I can get a hunting and weapon license and go hunting or join a shooting club for some competition shooting with fairly low caliber riffles and handguns - or join the army/national guard.
I can also get a weapons permit for other weapons, but as part of a collection, not for home protection or concealed carry.
All of the above, of course, requires that I have a clean criminal record etc.
I don't fear my government (or my fellow citizens) to the point where I feel the need to be armed.
Do we have illegally armed criminals here? Sure we do. "Funny" thing, though, they are almost all inspired by US gang culture or are actually members of international gangs (e.g. Hells Angels) - so it's an imported culture, if you will - and are usually in the drug business.

No, we don't have 60%+ federal income tax. We have around 40% federal income tax and then a progressive tax increase for those making a lot of money (some might get to 60&+, but it's not taxed on all earned income, only amounts above a certain level).
We also have a personal deduction on top of that, based on several things, like a set amount if you're working + if you're paying interest on loans and so on.
That taxation also pays for our universal health care, as you point out (and many other things, including free education, including university) - so if you want to compare tax percentages, don't forget to add your health insurance costs to your normal taxes too.
You can't just sit at home watching the Swedish bikini team (besides, we have plenty of beautiful Danish women too ;-) ). Well, you could, but you'd quickly starve, because you wouldn't get any money from the government/city if you're not available for the job market.
You have to be available and actively seeking a job to get unemployment benefits. I won't go into our whole unemployment system, it's really a detour from the original subject, but suffice to say that you can't just freeload it.
That's the social safety net I was talking about (okay, I called it social security net, but I'm sure you got the point). That's part of a responsible society and part of why people feel safer and thus have no need to arm themselves.

EDIT:
As for the less poverty thing. Yes, we have less poverty. Less homeless people per capita. Although unemployment benefits aren't massive, it's enough to get by on if you're a little frugal (i.e. don't buy massive flatscreen TVs and stereos, maybe cut down on smoking etc.).
I'm on disability benefits, which are higher than unemployment benefits, and come January I'll be getting around $3,100 a month before taxes.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
mordion wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:

Just a very real reminder to those of you who style yourself a self-made Rambo type who could easily take down any shooter you come across or who clamour for arming more people, including teachers and such:

Concealed Carry permit holders live in a dream world (VIDEO)
That seems like a super-unbiased source.

Oh, you mean the police men and weapons experts in the video? Yeah, super biased. A bunch of liberal gun-banners if I ever saw one! ;-)

Also:
"The Violence Policy Center is a national non-profit educational foundation that conducts research on violence in America and works to develop violence-reduction policies and proposals. The Center examines the role of firearms in America, conducts research on firearms violence, and explores new ways to decrease firearm-related death and injury."
How can that in any way be a bad thing? You want to increase firearm-related death and injury?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GentleGiant wrote:
Oh, you mean the police men and weapons experts in the video? Yeah, super biased. A bunch of liberal gun-banners if I ever saw one! ;-)
Aren't you the one that said:
GentleGiant wrote:
Citing a Cato Institute publication? Ahahahaha, yeah, that's not biased in any way at all.

Suddenly the organization creating the study is irrelevant?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
mordion wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
Oh, you mean the police men and weapons experts in the video? Yeah, super biased. A bunch of liberal gun-banners if I ever saw one! ;-)
Aren't you the one that said:
GentleGiant wrote:
Citing a Cato Institute publication? Ahahahaha, yeah, that's not biased in any way at all.
Suddenly the organization creating the study is irrelevant?

I never said that it was irrelevant. Did you actually watch the videos?

Also, yes, the VPC seek to ban most types of firearms in the US (note: MOST, not all!). They want to do that by presenting information about how dangerous they are. Isn't that the right way to go about changing things? By providing evidence to support your goal?

The Cato Institute on the other hand is a Koch brothers organization seeking to further their agenda and it hasn't always a good reputation for being unbiased or providing solid research.

Taldor

mordion wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Translation: not by Faux News
A very bad translation. I never watch Fox, and get most of my news from NPR. Look at website of the group that did that study, and tell me if you honestly think they're unbiased on the matter.

That's an NBC news piece being hosted by a liberal site. Well I doubt that it would be hosted there if the conclusions were different it's still NBC and not some political group's study.


GentleGiant wrote:

Just a very real reminder to those of you who style yourself a self-made Rambo type who could easily take down any shooter you come across or who clamour for arming more people, including teachers and such:

Concealed Carry permit holders live in a dream world (VIDEO)

Thank you for posting this. The phenomenon described at the end of that video where individuals faced with a violent attack are only able to see and process the weapon is called weapon focus. I've been fortunate enough to have the opportunity to take graduate-level classes on the subject taught by Dr. Loftus herself. Simply put, an untrained individual's senses are nearly worthless in a crisis situation, both during the event and after the fact. They cannot be relied upon. Anyone who believes that spending time at a shooting range will prepare them in any way to deal with an actual attack is deluding themselves with a singularly dangerous fantasy.


mordion wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:

Just a very real reminder to those of you who style yourself a self-made Rambo type who could easily take down any shooter you come across or who clamour for arming more people, including teachers and such:

Concealed Carry permit holders live in a dream world (VIDEO)
That seems like a super-unbiased source.

I doubt there's any real bias involved. The phenomena described and witnessed in that video have been studied extensively. They're just countering the all-too-common assumption that owning a gun and a couple hours a month of firing range practice means that you're capable of protecting your family.

You don't have any actual reason for labeling it biased. You just don't like what it has to say, and pretending it's biased is super easy for you. Anything else would require challenging your closely-held beliefs, and that's uncomfortable.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Unless I'm confused by the website, it appears the study that ABC news is documenting was commissioned by VPC.

I actually didn't watch the videos, I already basically agree with their conclusions. I don't personally know any (non-professional) people with a CHL that I would trust to do any good in a shooting situation, and I imagine that's typical. I mentioned the source for the sake of any of the pro-gun people that might wish to dispute the findings.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about Cato, most of my siblings either interned or worked there, and respect the sincerity and honesty of their colleagues.


Guy Humual wrote:
mordion wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Translation: not by Faux News
A very bad translation. I never watch Fox, and get most of my news from NPR. Look at website of the group that did that study, and tell me if you honestly think they're unbiased on the matter.
That's an NBC news piece being hosted by a liberal site. Well I doubt that it would be hosted there if the conclusions were different it's still NBC and not some political group's study.

Quick nitpick: ABC News, not NBC.

In all other respects, though: yes.

Taldor

Scott Betts wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
mordion wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Translation: not by Faux News
A very bad translation. I never watch Fox, and get most of my news from NPR. Look at website of the group that did that study, and tell me if you honestly think they're unbiased on the matter.
That's an NBC news piece being hosted by a liberal site. Well I doubt that it would be hosted there if the conclusions were different it's still NBC and not some political group's study.

Quick nitpick: ABC News, not NBC.

In all other respects, though: yes.

It's all alphabet soup to me. I got CBC for my news up here and I watch the Daily Show and Colbert Report for my American news. I find them less silly.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:


Thank you for posting this. The phenomenon described at the end of that video where individuals faced with a violent attack are only able to see and process the weapon is called weapon focus..

To be fair, the situations where you don't want to concentrate exclusively on the one attackers weapon are pretty few and far between. And I'm sure a room full of people with guns do better than a room full of people without them.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


Thank you for posting this. The phenomenon described at the end of that video where individuals faced with a violent attack are only able to see and process the weapon is called weapon focus..

To be fair, the situations where you don't want to concentrate exclusively on the one attackers weapon are pretty few and far between. And I'm sure a room full of people with guns do better than a room full of people without them.

It depends on what your goal is. Focusing on the weapon itself is okay if you want to avoid it, but frankly it's a physiological response to threatening objects rooted in our evolutionary development. It's so that we don't lose track of dangerous things like teeth or claws when we're toe-to-toe with a predator. It doesn't help much in situations where you're dealing with a loaded firearm, where putting distance between you and the weapon isn't necessarily going to protect you. It prevents you from having a full appreciation of the situation beyond the weapon, it can impair your decision-making abilities, and it makes you unreliable for recounting events and descriptions after-the-fact.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
You don't have any actual reason for labeling it biased. You just don't like what it has to say, and pretending it's biased is super easy for you. Anything else would require challenging your closely-held beliefs, and that's uncomfortable.

Thanks for explaining to me what I think and why I think it.


mordion wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
You don't have any actual reason for labeling it biased. You just don't like what it has to say, and pretending it's biased is super easy for you. Anything else would require challenging your closely-held beliefs, and that's uncomfortable.
Thanks for explaining to me what I think and why I think it.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I go with the most parsimonious explanation.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
mordion wrote:

Unless I'm confused by the website, it appears the study that ABC news is documenting was commissioned by VPC.

I actually didn't watch the videos, I already basically agree with their conclusions. I don't personally know any (non-professional) people with a CHL that I would trust to do any good in a shooting situation, and I imagine that's typical. I mentioned the source for the sake of any of the pro-gun people that might wish to dispute the findings.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about Cato, most of my siblings either interned or worked there, and respect the sincerity and honesty of their colleagues.

I already posted a debunking of the Cato publication Andrew R linked to.

And if you didn't watch the video, how can you then think that any "pro-gun" people will be able to dispute the findings?
Besides, the videos were the main focus of the page in question and the reason why I posted it, not the link to the study (although they conclude the same thing). It's a very visual presentation of why the vigilante fantasies of some people are going to crash and burn if they are faced with such a situation and might even endanger even more people.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GentleGiant wrote:
And if you didn't watch the video, how can you then think that any "pro-gun" people will be able to dispute the findings?

Do you think pro-gun is an odd way to describe some of the posters in this thread? Do you think there is anything that could possibly be in that video that would keep some of the pro-gun people from trying to dispute the findings?


mordion wrote:
Do you think pro-gun is an odd way to describe some of the posters in this thread?

There are people in this thread who have advocated that we give guns to school teachers and/or schoolchildren.

So, no.

751 to 800 of 1,152 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Another school shooting All Messageboards

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.