Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2012 - 02:53pm PT
|
Law of averages.
For every Cragman or Shack, how many wannabe 'gangstas' or rox' are there?
|
|
beef supreme
climber
the west
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:02pm PT
|
I dunno how many wanna be gangsters there may be, perhaps you have a point. But if you want to use the 'law of averages' then I'd apply it to someone being of use in a situation like that.
Most of the people that I've met that have anything to do with guns are responsible with their firearms, those that do/have a concealed carry aren't 'wanna be gansters' either. Doesn't mean that they're not out there, wanna be 'heros' or whatever, but I'm more concerned about the real gangsters/ people of violence/ criminals/ etc.
|
|
beef supreme
climber
the west
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:03pm PT
|
totally, 100% agree with you Tami
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:06pm PT
|
Donnini....You just crapped in the gun deabte litter box...go get a rake and cover it.......RJ
|
|
beef supreme
climber
the west
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:14pm PT
|
toadgas, maybe you're onto something about crazy genetics. didn't malcom gladwel write about that in blink or (drawing a blank on the other book i've read of his)- anyway, about the violent portions of appalacia and family feuds?
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:22pm PT
|
Donnini was in special forces..? I retract the litter box remark...Was just joking.......RJ
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:23pm PT
|
Okay, I'm sure they do too. But like Shack said, you dont know how someone will react until they are in the situation. I, for one, do not care to be part of their learning curve,
And btw, I dont think the socio-ethnic cleansing of gang members that you implied is the answer either
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:25pm PT
|
Maybe the solution is for Americans to wear flak jackets in public just like the Israelis being issued Gas Masks by their government...?
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:31pm PT
|
1: I clearly have some interest as I have commented several times already on this thread. Please read the whole thread before posting. ;-)
2: This thread was forked from another where some felt the gun debate was a bit tired and insensitive.
3: I'm not sure where you pulled your definition of trolling from but I am guessing this doesn't fit it. How does going off topic and attacking the thread author about saying he might be disinterested in his own thread sound for a definition of "trolling" though?
Simply doesn't fit with your original post.
|
|
Josh Higgins
Trad climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:37pm PT
|
A couple of things I've heard on NPR over the past couple of days:
1. There are roughly two dozen shootings annually in the US where 4 or more people are killed.
2. One man interviewed reported conducting research into such shootings and found that gun control did reduce the number of shootings. It would be interesting to see if that was peer-reviewed scientific research, but it sounded like it probably was.
If gun control does reduce such shootings, I view that as a good thing. I don't think that elimination of guns is realistic, or a even a goal to strive for at all, but some sort of screening or delay in receiving a purchased firearm would be great if proven scientifically to reduce violence and murder rates.
A question for those who oppose gun control, would some gun control be acceptable if research showed that it would reduce violence?
Josh
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:37pm PT
|
That's cause its a Trick question toad, neither gun control or arming the population from
Montessori on can eliminate this threat. (Life is like that) And you know that. Gotta set your rhetorical traps better than that.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:38pm PT
|
I think trolling is more along the lines of saying you chose climbing as the ideal activity for a bunch of developmentally disabled children you're working with because of all the sports, climbing is the one that requires the least intelligence to do.
That one was a classic, and a good definition of the term.
|
|
tarek
climber
berkeley
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:39pm PT
|
You have a super bright scientist in training who decided to use guns to kill people in a theater. Seems to me the key issue is mental health--not guns. You think this guy was not smart enough to figure out another way? Look at his apartment. The scary thing to me is that this person was very capable of bioterrorism. It's a waste of time talking about guns. How does someone like Holmes get this way?
Let's say there was ideal gun control (i.e., the impossible: good guys have guns, bad/unstable guys don't). One of these nut jobs is going to use a car, or a bomb (oh, yeah, that already happened) or much worse. The only hopeful thing about this case is that we might learn something about how the alleged killer thinks.
|
|
Josh Higgins
Trad climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2012 - 03:56pm PT
|
Fascinating:
"The findings of this study that gun control is ineffective in reducing crime rates are consistent with the vast majority of other studies that use state data."
Moorehouse, J.C., Wanner, B. (2006). Does Gun Control Reduce Crime or does Crime Increase Gun Control? Cato Journal 26(1) pg 103-124.
A little bit of poking around shows that the Cato Institute is libertarian and possibly political. I'm not 100% sure this journal article is 100% reliable, but interesting to skim...
Anyone know if the Cato Institute's data is reliable and impartial? Or do they have a strong enough agenda that it may not be trustworthy?
Josh
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2012 - 04:11pm PT
|
Beef you ask:
I have to ask the gun control crowd though: if you found yourself in that situation- would you rather there be a chance of someone else having a firearm or would you rather know, without a doubt, that no one else in the room had a gun aside from the crazy fuk shooting everyone? Think about it, because when you preach gun control, especially concealed carry, that is what you're potentially creating.
Beef, the only thing I'd find worse that being in a target-rich environment as one of the targets, is to be in a CROSS-FIRE between two people firing. Or how about 10 people firing, in poor visibility?
How would I like to have one of those guns?
When the SWAT team comes in and sees people firing guns, they have been converted into targets....as almost happened to a gun carrying person at the Giffords shooting.
|
|
Shack
Big Wall climber
Reno NV
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2012 - 05:07pm PT
|
Why do non gun owners think no one could have helped by returning fire?
They have no tactical knowledge yet say things like "the chance that it would have made any difference was small."
How do you know?
Is that based on any actual knowledge or experience?
Shooting a pistol is not rocket science.
I could teach anyone here in an afternoon to hit what they aim at....no problem.
BTW..a "bullet proof" vest or "body armor" does not keep the bullets that hit you from causing severe internal injuries, broken bones, knocking the wind out of you, knocking you down, causing extreme pain and the feeling that you have been shot...nor does it protect your head, arms, or legs.
All they do is keep bullets from penetrating the body cavity (usually).
Being hit by multiple rounds even with a vest on is gonna f*ck you up, period.
|
|
beef supreme
climber
the west
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2012 - 05:19pm PT
|
Ken M: I agree with what you're suggesting about being in crossfire. I'm only saying that the situation is obviously f*#ked from the get go, could it have been worse if people were shooting back at the guy? Sure. Could it have turned out better if someone had gotten a shot off? Sure could.
Point is, we don't know, never will know, and it's all speculation by the likes of us on the peanut gallery. I'm saying that I'd rather someone had the chance to help instead of not.
|
|
beef supreme
climber
the west
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2012 - 05:21pm PT
|
and Mighty Hiker:
why do you phrase pro-gun/ violence people the way that you did? Do you really think that pro-gun people are people of violence? I wouldn't be so general in your a*#umptions. People of violence may absolutely use a gun (or their fists or a club or knife, etc)
I wouldn't equate a person that claims to be pro-gun to be a person of violence.
Edit: but I would concede the point that perhaps people who are armed don't help out much in these types of situations statistically. I really don't know what the numbers are and like other people have made point of, you really don't hear about many of those stories. At least I don't. Hopefully they don't happen that often really.
I would, personally, rather have a chance to defend myself/ others or have another person acting to that end.
|
|
Shack
Big Wall climber
Reno NV
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2012 - 05:33pm PT
|
a) Of course you'd have to be there, and nobody carries unloaded..whats the point?
b)yes, you would have to be in range and I'm sure anyone would be able to tell where the shooter was from the muzzle flash
c) can't guarantee that no one else would be injured, but if you were able to stop the shooter from continuing to execute people, the reward far out weighs the risk.
d)not even in the equation once you decide to shoot back
e)? who is going to mistake who? the cops are 10 minutes away...
While it is rare, it happens way more than you think.
So what if the odds are not good...The bad guy is already killing people right and left, how could it get any worse?
You wouldn't need ideal circumstances to have made a difference...even if you only saved one life, it's worth trying.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!