Brother kills sister

[Mike]

@Mike .....Doesn't think we have the




Kid grabs a pistol and kills his sister......but we don't have the "necessary information".

The gun killed the girl. We have that information.

Um I'm pretty sure the gun didn't like hover into the room and shoot her on it's own. Now I agree if we DO discover evidence of haunted guns, well that's an issue.


I just don't get the logic. When that dude cut a guys head off on the bus, everyone didn't say ban knives. They said hey, I bet that guy's fucking crazy. And they were right.

 

[Prime Rib]

Um I'm pretty sure the gun didn't like hover into the room and shoot her on it's own. Now I agree if we DO discover evidence of haunted guns, well that's an issue.


I just don't get the logic. When that dude cut a guys head off on the bus, everyone didn't say ban knives. They said hey, I bet that guy's fucking crazy. And they were right.

Your "logic" gets fucked up right here....if the gun wasn't there the poor 13 year old sister would be alive.

 

[Mike]

Your "logic" gets fucked up right here....if the gun wasn't there the poor 13 year old sister would be alive.

What? That's a bit of a logical leap considering the gun didn't come to life and possess the child. If there was no gun, every house is full of lethal objects. If you're a complete psychopath.

Again what proof is there that if there's no gun, that he doesn't assault her with something else? By far the most abnormal thing about this situation is the nine year old having the capacity to murder.

 

[Prime Rib]

What? That's a bit of a logical leap considering the gun didn't come to life and possess the child. If there was no gun, every house is full of lethal objects. If you're a complete psychopath.

Again what proof is there that if there's no gun, that he doesn't assault her with something else? By far the most abnormal thing about this situation is the nine year old having the capacity to murder.

A gun was available and killed his poor sister. A knife didn't do it. A gun did.

 

[Mike]

A gun was available and killed his poor sister. A knife didn't do it. A gun did.

I've been polite and fair during this discussion, not sure why you're trying SO hard to troll me.

 

[Prime Rib]

I've been polite and fair during this discussion, not sure why you're trying SO hard to troll me.

A gun was used. Not a knife. Not a ball bat.

Facts are a bitch.

 

[Mike]

A gun was used. Not a knife. Not a ball bat.

Facts are a bitch.

Ok so either you're trolling, or YOU'RE a nine year old.

 

[Prime Rib]

I've been polite and fair during this discussion, not sure why you're trying SO hard to troll me.

Because this is an obvious gun death and you are trying to stuff It up your asshole.

 

[Mike]

Because this is an obvious gun death and you are trying to stuff It up your asshole.

You are a very strange dude.

 

[Prime Rib]

You are a very strange dude.

Can we talk about the gun problem now?

 

[Mike]

Can we talk about the gun problem now?

I mean sure. Are you also capable of realizing that when an insane person grabs a knife or a gun or a brick, the object isn't the underlying issue.


If you want to go on a rant against an NRA shill, well that's not me. I've never even held a gun.

 

[Neph]

I mean sure. Are you also capable of realizing that when an insane person grabs a knife or a gun or a brick, the object isn't the underlying issue.


If you want to go on a rant against an NRA shill, well that's not me. I've never even held a gun.

Can we get away from this idea that we only look at one issue at a time?

Yes, we know that people will mental illnesses are causing these shootings but if guns were not prolific they would have to do mass stabbings which would be significantly less catastrophic. Nevermind the fact that every developed country has citizens with mental illnesses yet they don't experience the same types of gun violence / mass shootings the US has.

Can we have a sensible approach where we look at both the causes and methodology?

 

[Prime Rib]

I mean sure. Are you also capable of realizing that when an insane person grabs a knife or a gun or a brick, the object isn't the underlying issue.


If you want to go on a rant against an NRA shill, well that's not me. I've never even held a gun.

"Never even held a gun."

 

[Mike]

Can we get away from this idea that we only look at one issue at a time?

Yes, we know that people will mental illnesses are causing these shootings but if guns were not prolific they would have to do mass stabbings which would be significantly less catastrophic. Nevermind the fact that every developed country has citizens with mental illnesses yet they don't experience the same types of gun violence / mass shootings the US has.

Can we have a sensible approach where we look at both the causes and methodology?

Sure. The conversation has flowed the way it has, because dude is insisting the gun was one hundred percent of the problem.


Which is obviously false. However mental health has been an extremely taboo topic here forever. Our massive prison population, homeless population, and a decent amount of our poverty are directly linked to a massive spike in mental health disorders.


And nobody is talking about it while it is basically the heart of the problem. Yet gun control gets discussed to DEATH. How people choose to commit violence is basically incidental when compared to the massive spike in negative outcomes of all kinds, that are directly related to poor mental health.

 

[Prime Rib]

 

[Neph]

How people choose to commit violence is basically incidental when compared to the massive spike in negative outcomes of all kinds, that are directly related to poor mental health.

I wholeheartedly agree with everything except this. I believe clear to everyone that these events are terrible and the method of committing them is significant.

 

[FierceRedBelt]

Can we get away from this idea that we only look at one issue at a time?

Yes, we know that people will mental illnesses are causing these shootings but if guns were not prolific they would have to do mass stabbings which would be significantly less catastrophic. Nevermind the fact that every developed country has citizens with mental illnesses yet they don't experience the same types of gun violence / mass shootings the US has.

Can we have a sensible approach where we look at both the causes and methodology?

So lets say you remove the mass shootings.

What about all the other illegal gun violence, home invasions, domestic violence, gang violence, etc.? You're talking away a person's ability to defend themselves against someone physically more capable than themselves.

 

[Neph]

So lets say you remove the mass shootings.

What about all the other illegal gun violence, home invasions, domestic violence, gang violence, etc.? You're talking away a person's ability to defend themselves against someone physically more capable than themselves.

Hi FierceRdBelt

I made a post in another thread where I answered something similar enough that I think it covers my general thoughts on this. The question at hand was about arming teachers to defend themselves and their students and this is close enough to arming yourself for defence. You can find the page in the thread here.

For context IGIT had just quoted a study done in NYC where trained LEOs hit their targets less than half the time from six feet out. He then asked if your child is in the classroom and a shooter bursts in, do you want the teacher to have a gun, yes or no?

My response was:

Hi IGIT

The answer is probably not with consideration to the numbers you quoted. They might well hurt more people than they help, and this assumes they have the gun ready to go which would be ludicrously dangerous to keep an unsecured weapon at a school.

The question fails to look at the situation outside of an incredibly unlikely situation. Let's evaluate it more honestly.

0.01% of teachers will be put in a situation of facing an armed intruder with an intent to commit a mass shooting. I'm not convinced they will help the situation at all. Social benefit almost 0.
99.99% of teachers will not. Will the presence of a firearm with all of the associated dangers outweigh the incredibly small chance that the teacher in the 0.01% population can help? Social cost is very high (25x the gun violence rate in the US v rest of the developed world).

I think the answer is no.

The safety of the community goes down with every gun that is added to it. The gun is like a drug, you need it to defend yourself against another gun which creates only escalation, and once it is so entrenched in your culture it seems it can't be purged.

 

[FierceRedBelt]

Hi FierceRdBelt

I made a post in another thread where I answered something similar enough that I think it covers my general thoughts on this. The question at hand was about arming teachers to defend themselves and their students and this is close enough to arming yourself for defence. You can find the page in the thread here.

For context IGIT had just quoted a study done in NYC where trained LEOs hit their targets less than half the time from six feet out. He then asked if your child is in the classroom and a shooter bursts in, do you want the teacher to have a gun, yes or no?

My response was:

I think you'd have to do a lot of statistical research and then on top of it all tell someone at risk they have no right to defend themselves. That itself scares me.

If you're six foot three and 225lbs of muscle and aggression you can walk up and just take what's mine. Do you suppose I should have no right to defend myself because statistically speaking I'll likely lose?

 

[Neph]

I think you'd have to do a lot of statistical research and then on top of it all tell someone at risk they have no right to defend themselves. That itself scares me.

If you're six foot three and 225lbs of muscle and aggression you can walk up and just take what's mine. Do you suppose I should have no right to defend myself because statistically speaking I'll likely lose?

What I would ask is - does this actually happen with any regularity in developed countries? I don't think so. My personal experience is that none of these things have happened to me or anyone I know. I also don't agree to take lives for the purposes of a few material possession that I have insured - again, I stress, not that this is by any means a thing I even fear.

The point I want to make is that sure, there's that small chance you may be put in a position where your life is threatened and a gun would help, after which there is a small chance the gun will actually be of use (ie: you have time to draw it, it is already loaded, etc.). This is a tiny chance within a tiny chance.

Then there is all the other times that guns are not helpful and are in fact strictly dangerous.

The safety of the community goes down with every gun that is added to it. The gun is like a drug, you need it to defend yourself against another gun which creates only escalation, and once it is so entrenched in your culture it seems it can't be purged.

What I would grant you is that if you are legitimately in a region where you and your families lives are threatened with such regularity that a gun increases the safety then yes, have one. But from your location it says you are in the United States, not South Sudan. We are all lucky to be in places where our lives are not under this constant threat.