LDS Teenager Murdered at her High School in Parkland

[_Darth J]

Then there is something really seriously wrong with him...if not a gun..anything would do

Are you suggesting that an AR-15 with multiple high-capacity magazines is no more efficient than any other makeshift weapon at killing many people in a short time? Or did you mean something else here?

[_Stem]

You seem to have forgotten your original point, such as it was, so I'll remind you. On page 2 of this thread, you said that you did not believe more restrictions were the best solution to gun violence because, among other things, that it would somehow lead to even more violence. In context, you were not saying it was "possible" in a banal, Russell's Teapot kind of way. You were implying that it was likely. Otherwise, it wouldn't support your claim to say it.

I believe you've misread me, as the point you are attributing to me was not my intended point at all. I did not suggest that more restrictions were not the best solution to gun violence because it would lead to more violence. I suggested that gun restrictions might not be the solution to the problems that cause these mass killings. After all, I suggested, it's quite possible that if the country did enact more restrictions that there could be more mass killings. It's quite possible that someone out there could kill people without legal access to a gun and without a gun at all. Of course it's quite possible that there could be less as well.

I want to see more restrictions for gun access, for many reasons. But I'm not convinced if we enact more gun restrictions laws we win this battle.

On the other hand, if you did mean that it was "possible" in a banal, Russell's Teapot kind of way, then it adds nothing to what you're claiming, so who gives a ____?

apparently I interested you enough to comment.

[_Kevin Graham]

Then there is something really seriously wrong with him...

The hat was a dead giveaway huh.

[_Darth J]

You seem to have forgotten your original point, such as it was, so I'll remind you. On page 2 of this thread, you said that you did not believe more restrictions were the best solution to gun violence because, among other things, that it would somehow lead to even more violence. In context, you were not saying it was "possible" in a banal, Russell's Teapot kind of way. You were implying that it was likely. Otherwise, it wouldn't support your claim to say it.

I believe you've misread me, as the point you are attributing to me was not my intended point at all. I did not suggest that more restrictions were not the best solution to gun violence because it would lead to more violence. I suggested that gun restrictions might not be the solution to the problems that cause these mass killings. After all, I suggested, it's quite possible that if the country did enact more restrictions that there could be more mass killings. It's quite possible that someone out there could kill people without legal access to a gun and without a gun at all. Of course it's quite possible that there could be less as well.

This means you did mean to say it is likely, not just "possible" in a trivial, hypothetical sense. Which means it does require argument unless you just want to rely on mere assertion. The thing you're claiming is not only not obvious, it's demonstrably wrong.

I want to see more restrictions for gun access, for many reasons. But I'm not convinced if we enact more gun restrictions laws we win this battle.

The state of the evidence in social science is against you.

On the other hand, if you did mean that it was "possible" in a banal, Russell's Teapot kind of way, then it adds nothing to what you're claiming, so who gives a ____?

apparently I interested you enough to comment.

No, see, you can't have it both ways. Either you're making a claim that you want people to believe, or you're not. When you say you don't need an argument, what that means is you can't explain why your idea is valid, but you want people to accept it anyway.

[_RockSlider]

Are you suggesting that an AR-15 with multiple high-capacity magazines is no more efficient than any other makeshift weapon at killing many people in a short time? Or did you mean something else here?

In reading the links you provided upthread, his expulsion from the school was based on bringing knives to school. He was disallowed and others warned that he was not allowed on school grounds with a backpack.

As far as a AR being the most efficient in a close quarters, indoor situation, a pump shotgun would be far more efficient. If AR's were not available, and then other semi-auto's were not available, the most deadly indoors weapon, that pump shotgun would be one of the lowest on the public's perception as needing to go.

Here is a really good example of what the general public really knows about guns, and what 'needs to go'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqJ_4YhYMhE

[_Stem]

This means you did mean to say it is likely, not just "possible" in a trivial, hypothetical sense.

No. It means just possible, in a trivial hypothetical sense. I fear you are continuing to misread.

Which means it does require argument unless you just want to rely on mere assertion. The thing you're claiming is not only not obvious, it's demonstrably wrong.

That's absurd. How do you know if and when these mass killings are going to happen? What are you saying is demonstrably wrong? A possibility that more killings could happen?

The state of the evidence in social science is against you.

how so?

No, see, you can't have it both ways. Either you're making a claim that you want people to believe, or you're not. When you say you don't need an argument, what that means is you can't explain why your idea is valid, but you want people to accept it anyway.

I don't care if anyone accepts it. I think this is simply a case of misunderstanding at this point. Each time you've tried to restate my position you've gotten it wrong. It seems to me I've been pretty clear...maybe not seeing as you haven't gotten it. If so, my bad. All the best.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I've been thinking of gathering a rather lengthy sample of pro-gun comments off of Yahoo, the SLCTrib, and a few other news sources in order to provide a sort of broad take on America's comfort with teenagers getting shot to death in a learning environment, since apparently no one can muster any sort of outrage these days for the unfortunate souls who occupy our inner cities.

Anyhoo. After getting cancer because of their comments (don't celebrate too soon, I went into remission as soon as I closed the tabs) I'll just give you the tl;dr versions:

1) We're ok with gun deaths because Hitler/Mao/Stalin.

2) Price of freedom something blood something watering tree of Liberty.

3) Law abiding citizens something non sequitur something car deaths.

That about sums up their position. Half the adults in this country are cool with poor people shooting each other, teenagers getting shot by 4Chan types, depressed people blowing their brains out, and unnecessarily paying hundreds of billions in associated costs because 'muh freedumbs'.

- Doc

[_RockSlider]

That about sums up their position. Half the adults in this country are cool with poor people shooting each other, teenagers getting shot by 4Chan types, depressed people blowing their brains out, and unnecessarily paying hundreds of billions in associated costs because 'muh freedumbs'.

Sure, wildly give up 'muh freedumbs' in hopes that will cause the sickness to subside.

[_Jersey Girl]

Not reading the whole thread. Metal detectors in all schools, heavily tax firearms/ammo, make gun owners take out high priced liability insurance, and tighten up registration process if at all possible.

And do something to better address mental illness in this country.

Let's not ignore the fact that there were not 17 victims in this shooting. There were hundreds. Both students and adults who witnessed or heard the shootings/screaming/dying are extremely vulnerable for PTSD, anxiety/depression and ultimately ideation of, attempted, or completed suicide and substance abuse.

These types of shootings will cause a rippling effect not just for the families of the deceased, but for every single person who was on site that day, and those effects can be felt for a life time.

What you have in this case is a mentally ill young adult who shot up a school, killed 17 folks, sent hundreds of others out of the building and catapulted them into their own journey with mental illness.

That is to say, the shooter effing replicated hundreds more of HIMSELF.

[_Darth J]

This means you did mean to say it is likely, not just "possible" in a trivial, hypothetical sense.

No. It means just possible, in a trivial hypothetical sense. I fear you are continuing to misread.

That's true. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you meant to make a connection between your claims and observable reality. I did indeed misread you.

Which means it does require argument unless you just want to rely on mere assertion. The thing you're claiming is not only not obvious, it's demonstrably wrong.

That's absurd. How do you know if and when these mass killings are going to happen? What are you saying is demonstrably wrong? A possibility that more killings could happen?

I'll throw my question from upthread to you. In a mass shooting, the perpetrator is trying to kill as many people in as short a time as possible. An ideal weapon for this is a machine gun, which is fully automatic.

In 1934, Congress passed the Firearms Act, which substantially restricts ownership on certain types of guns. Although it is possible, under the Firearms Act, for a civilian to legally buy a machine gun, it is extemely difficult. For most people, the Firearms Act is a de facto ban on machine guns.

During the last 84 years, how many mass shootings have been committed in the U.S. with a machine gun? Keeping in mind that the reason for the Firearms Act was to stop Prohibition era mass shootings with machine guns. Like the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, which was 89 years to the day before the mass shooting this thread is about.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

The state of the evidence in social science is against you.

how so?

If you don't know what things like crime displacement are, then I wonder how you arrived at your opinion that it's meaningfully possible that more restrictions would increase mass shootings. But then you also conceded you don't actually mean "possible" in a way that has anything to do with the real world, so who knows where you're going.

No, see, you can't have it both ways. Either you're making a claim that you want people to believe, or you're not. When you say you don't need an argument, what that means is you can't explain why your idea is valid, but you want people to accept it anyway.

I don't care if anyone accepts it. I think this is simply a case of misunderstanding at this point. Each time you've tried to restate my position you've gotten it wrong. It seems to me I've been pretty clear...maybe not seeing as you haven't gotten it. If so, my bad. All the best.

Yes, well, if no one can figure out what your point is, no one can gainsay it. So you have the benefit of both saying and not saying something. It's very Zen.