Author Topic: Gun Control?  (Read 18987 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #630 on: May 25, 2018, 10:55:27 AM »

Online Cman

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12373
  • Tommy Points: 8
Celtics fan for life.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #631 on: May 25, 2018, 11:37:35 AM »

Offline gift

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1409
  • Tommy Points: 140
I know this rarely happens but it is great when it does:


Civilian shoots, kills suspect who opened fire at Oklahoma City restaurant

Quote
The "bystander with a pistol confronted the shooter outside the restaurant and fatally shot him," OKCPD wrote on Twitter.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/civilian-shoots-kills-suspect-opened-fire-restaurant/story?id=55424657

I am still for some reasonable gun control.
What's so great about this? There's more info to come but this civilian acted as judge and jury, unless the suspect confronted him first and he feared for his life. Depending on how witnesses saw things this civilian could be in a lot of trouble.

wow. it takes a certain bias to even go there without (admittedly) knowing the details.
I don't like guns. I will admit that. But read the article. It leaves open the scenario Vermont Green and I disgussed above. Also, I could say that it takes a certain bias to believe this is as simple as good guy shoots bad guy, hooray.

Did I say it was a good guy shoots bad guy? The bias is in the "judge and jury" comment.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #632 on: May 25, 2018, 11:40:55 AM »

Offline gift

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1409
  • Tommy Points: 140
"A man walked into the Louie's restaurant and opened fire with a gun. Two people were shot," police said. "A bystander with a pistol confronted the shooter outside the restaurant and fatally shot him."

This is the part I am unclear about.  Sounds like the shooter did his shooting inside the restaurant but then was confronted outside the restaurant.  Don't want to split hairs on this but two very different scenarios could have played out here, one where the bystander was in danger and defended himself and the other where he simply decided it was the right thing to do to shoot the guy even though he may have been running away and no longer in the act of shooting people but didn't want the shooter to "get away".

Some will say either is fine, the shooter should have been shot in either case, but I think most will recognize the important nuance here.

An assailant with a deadly weapon, who has just used that weapon, should not be viewed as "just trying to get away". Knowledge on the ground, in the moment, is that he's still an active shooter. It takes a view from above to think otherwise, a perspective which we shouldn't conveniently grant ourselves without good reason.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #633 on: May 25, 2018, 11:41:01 AM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32677
  • Tommy Points: 5371
I know this rarely happens but it is great when it does:


Civilian shoots, kills suspect who opened fire at Oklahoma City restaurant

Quote
The "bystander with a pistol confronted the shooter outside the restaurant and fatally shot him," OKCPD wrote on Twitter.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/civilian-shoots-kills-suspect-opened-fire-restaurant/story?id=55424657

I am still for some reasonable gun control.
What's so great about this? There's more info to come but this civilian acted as judge and jury, unless the suspect confronted him first and he feared for his life. Depending on how witnesses saw things this civilian could be in a lot of trouble.

wow. it takes a certain bias to even go there without (admittedly) knowing the details.
I don't like guns. I will admit that. But read the article. It leaves open the scenario Vermont Green and I disgussed above. Also, I could say that it takes a certain bias to believe this is as simple as good guy shoots bad guy, hooray.

Did I say it was a good guy shoots bad guy? The bias is in the "judge and jury" comment.
If the man confronted the suspect and just shot him, that's vigilantism which would make the judge and jury comment pertinent.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #634 on: May 25, 2018, 12:00:08 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18880
  • Tommy Points: 888
Hey another day, another school shooting.  This time at a middle school in Indiana.  No reported death, though 3 injuries, and the suspect has been caught.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #635 on: May 25, 2018, 12:05:45 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18880
  • Tommy Points: 888
It should be blatantly obvious to everyone that there is no single measure or strategy, or set of such, that is going to prevent gun violence or mass shootings.  Solutions need to be comprehensive and geared to impact the likelihood of reductions in frequency and impact of mass shootings.

I disagree somewhat. Mass shootings are terrible, of course, but statistically we’re talking about a small percentage of gun deaths.  I’d much prefer that the focus was on preventing the thousands of handgun related deaths every year.
Unless you just ban hand guns though the vast majority of the hand gun deaths just aren't preventable (at least in the sense of the word we are discussing).  And frankly even if you banned hand guns, people would just find other ways to commit suicide or murder their spouse, lover, neighbor, etc.  The reason people focus on the mass shootings, is because those are much easier to prevent with simple gun regulation (and banning of certain types of weapons or munition) as well as just being far more random and horrible.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #636 on: May 25, 2018, 12:34:59 PM »

Online Cman

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12373
  • Tommy Points: 8
Hey another day, another school shooting.  This time at a middle school in Indiana.  No reported death, though 3 injuries, and the suspect has been caught.

Thankfully no reported death, though too bad not more reporting. More media outlets are focused on Weinstein than the school shooting. Because school shootings have become the norm.
Celtics fan for life.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #637 on: May 25, 2018, 12:45:22 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34932
  • Tommy Points: -27824
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
It should be blatantly obvious to everyone that there is no single measure or strategy, or set of such, that is going to prevent gun violence or mass shootings.  Solutions need to be comprehensive and geared to impact the likelihood of reductions in frequency and impact of mass shootings.

I disagree somewhat. Mass shootings are terrible, of course, but statistically we’re talking about a small percentage of gun deaths.  I’d much prefer that the focus was on preventing the thousands of handgun related deaths every year.
Unless you just ban hand guns though the vast majority of the hand gun deaths just aren't preventable (at least in the sense of the word we are discussing).  And frankly even if you banned hand guns, people would just find other ways to commit suicide or murder their spouse, lover, neighbor, etc.  [/bThe reason people focus on the mass shootings, is because those are much easier to prevent with simple gun regulation (and banning of certain types of weapons or munition) as well as just being far more random and horrible.

My guess is that the same argument is true with mass shootings. A kid with a shotgun and a revolver just shot 23 people, including a cop.



Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #638 on: May 25, 2018, 12:50:27 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34932
  • Tommy Points: -27824
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
I know this rarely happens but it is great when it does:


Civilian shoots, kills suspect who opened fire at Oklahoma City restaurant

Quote
The "bystander with a pistol confronted the shooter outside the restaurant and fatally shot him," OKCPD wrote on Twitter.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/civilian-shoots-kills-suspect-opened-fire-restaurant/story?id=55424657

I am still for some reasonable gun control.
What's so great about this? There's more info to come but this civilian acted as judge and jury, unless the suspect confronted him first and he feared for his life. Depending on how witnesses saw things this civilian could be in a lot of trouble.

wow. it takes a certain bias to even go there without (admittedly) knowing the details.
I don't like guns. I will admit that. But read the article. It leaves open the scenario Vermont Green and I disgussed above. Also, I could say that it takes a certain bias to believe this is as simple as good guy shoots bad guy, hooray.

Did I say it was a good guy shoots bad guy? The bias is in the "judge and jury" comment.
If the man confronted the suspect and just shot him, that's vigilantism which would make the judge and jury comment pertinent.

Was he doing it for revenge, or to stop more shootings? Did he feel threatened during the confrontation? What if his intention was to disarm the suspect until police arrived, but the guy wouldn’t drop his gun?

In almost all scenarios, I am okay with a suspect being shot immediately after he shot three people, including a kid.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2018, 12:59:25 PM by Roy H. »


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #639 on: May 25, 2018, 12:58:06 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34932
  • Tommy Points: -27824
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #640 on: May 25, 2018, 01:03:38 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18880
  • Tommy Points: 888
It should be blatantly obvious to everyone that there is no single measure or strategy, or set of such, that is going to prevent gun violence or mass shootings.  Solutions need to be comprehensive and geared to impact the likelihood of reductions in frequency and impact of mass shootings.

I disagree somewhat. Mass shootings are terrible, of course, but statistically we’re talking about a small percentage of gun deaths.  I’d much prefer that the focus was on preventing the thousands of handgun related deaths every year.
Unless you just ban hand guns though the vast majority of the hand gun deaths just aren't preventable (at least in the sense of the word we are discussing).  And frankly even if you banned hand guns, people would just find other ways to commit suicide or murder their spouse, lover, neighbor, etc.  [/bThe reason people focus on the mass shootings, is because those are much easier to prevent with simple gun regulation (and banning of certain types of weapons or munition) as well as just being far more random and horrible.

My guess is that the same argument is true with mass shootings. A kid with a shotgun and a revolver just shot 23 people, including a cop.
Sure that can happen, but the vast majority of the mass shootings are committed with automatic (or semiauto) weapons with large clips.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #641 on: May 25, 2018, 01:27:12 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32677
  • Tommy Points: 5371
Full details here on the OKC restaurant shooting:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/05/24/us/oklahoma-city-shooting/index.html
Sounds like the "hero" was trying to be a police officer. He's not. He may have no training in the type of incidences and he clearly tried to detain the suspect.

I don't. I would rather police do their job and have the justice system do theirs than have someone chase down a suspect and try to detain him with deadly force.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #642 on: May 25, 2018, 01:35:03 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34932
  • Tommy Points: -27824
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
It should be blatantly obvious to everyone that there is no single measure or strategy, or set of such, that is going to prevent gun violence or mass shootings.  Solutions need to be comprehensive and geared to impact the likelihood of reductions in frequency and impact of mass shootings.

I disagree somewhat. Mass shootings are terrible, of course, but statistically we’re talking about a small percentage of gun deaths.  I’d much prefer that the focus was on preventing the thousands of handgun related deaths every year.
Unless you just ban hand guns though the vast majority of the hand gun deaths just aren't preventable (at least in the sense of the word we are discussing).  And frankly even if you banned hand guns, people would just find other ways to commit suicide or murder their spouse, lover, neighbor, etc.  [/bThe reason people focus on the mass shootings, is because those are much easier to prevent with simple gun regulation (and banning of certain types of weapons or munition) as well as just being far more random and horrible.

My guess is that the same argument is true with mass shootings. A kid with a shotgun and a revolver just shot 23 people, including a cop.
Sure that can happen, but the vast majority of the mass shootings are committed with automatic (or semiauto) weapons with large clips.

Right, but why would people “find other ways” with handguns, but not assault weapons? 

(I don’t believe there have been any fully automatic mass shootings, by the way. Those guns are usually not accessible).

I just think the focus is misplaced. Taking away rifles will just lead to more handgun / shotgun deaths.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2018, 01:49:14 PM by Roy H. »


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #643 on: May 25, 2018, 01:37:44 PM »

Online Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24009
  • Tommy Points: 1049
  • What a Pub Should Be
Government is gonna have to start increase budgeting for "thoughts & prayers".


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #644 on: May 25, 2018, 01:50:47 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18880
  • Tommy Points: 888
It should be blatantly obvious to everyone that there is no single measure or strategy, or set of such, that is going to prevent gun violence or mass shootings.  Solutions need to be comprehensive and geared to impact the likelihood of reductions in frequency and impact of mass shootings.

I disagree somewhat. Mass shootings are terrible, of course, but statistically we’re talking about a small percentage of gun deaths.  I’d much prefer that the focus was on preventing the thousands of handgun related deaths every year.
Unless you just ban hand guns though the vast majority of the hand gun deaths just aren't preventable (at least in the sense of the word we are discussing).  And frankly even if you banned hand guns, people would just find other ways to commit suicide or murder their spouse, lover, neighbor, etc.  [/bThe reason people focus on the mass shootings, is because those are much easier to prevent with simple gun regulation (and banning of certain types of weapons or munition) as well as just being far more random and horrible.

My guess is that the same argument is true with mass shootings. A kid with a shotgun and a revolver just shot 23 people, including a cop.
Sure that can happen, but the vast majority of the mass shootings are committed with automatic (or semiauto) weapons with large clips.

Right, but why would people “find other ways” with handguns, but not assault weapons? 

(I don’t believe there have been any fully automatic mass shootings, by the way. Those guns are usually not accessible).

I just think the focus is misplaced. Taking away rifles will just lead to more handgun / shotgun deaths.
I'd much rather have hand gun/shot gun mass shootings then someone capable of just mowing people down with assault rifles.