If we would only hold the makers of assault weapons to the same questioning...........

[homersapien 11,428]

12 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

AAAnnnddd...30-40 years ago we had guns and no issues with mass shootings. The guns haven't changed, the people have. If you want to test for mental illness before selling a gun to someone, I will be your biggest supporter. If you want to add M4A and wildly alter Mental Illness Care, I will be your biggest supporter. What I expect is that NONE of that will happen or is even talked about.

Guns haven't changed???

[auburnatl1 5,010]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Columbine happened 25 years ago so DKW’s point stands.  Columbine was a watershed moment is school shootings, but the focus has been on the gun because it is the easiest thing to blame without dealing with the underlying mental health of the individual committing the crime.  Is the mental health issue even being addressed?  A lot of these gun incidents are due to bullying and gun incidences at schools have skyrocketed in 2018 and beyond, which is definitely in the socal media age.

https://www.security.org/blog/a-timeline-of-school-shootings-since-columbine/

We have a lot of anti-bullying programs in schools, but for some reason are not taken seriously.

 

I totally agree with that. But we both know that’s … really optimistic.  Theres a difference between a shooting and a mass shooting. Ie 3 deaths vs 27. To use your word the other day - scale. Technology matters in our military to achieve highly  “non symmetrical” casualties with the enemy. Same in a school.

I understand the “slippery slope” fear nra advocates have. The repeal of the 2nd amendment rants have been a disaster. However, the tired approach of trying to justify high capacity assault rifles for home protection or hunting - or to now blame social media as the new bugaboo (ps Aufamily is social media) for this mess is, respectfully imo, damn silly.

[CoffeeTiger 5,165]

Somewhat on this topic: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/02/06/jennifer-crumbley-verdict-oxford-school-shooting-trial/

The mother of the 2021 Oxford, Michigan school shooter was just convicted of 4 counts of manslaughter. Prosecutors said her and her husband (who is going on trial in March) were negligent when they bought their 15 year old son the gun he used to shoot up his school only 4 days before the shooting, and they did nothing to secure the weapon from their son easily accessing it. The parents also allegedly ignored troubling mental health issues that the kid displayed over a period of time

The kid was telling his parents he was hearing voices and seeing ghosts in their house, but the parents claimed they thought he was just joking around. 

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,957]

30 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

The kid was telling his parents he was hearing voices and seeing ghosts in their house, but the parents claimed they thought he was just joking around.

Hopefully, people will start paying attention when their kids tell them they need help.  It could be a start.

[I_M4_AU 7,957]

1 hour ago, auburnatl1 said:

Technology matters in our military to achieve highly  “non symmetrical” casualties with the enemy. Same in a school.

Our military teaches this technology, where does the school shooter get this training and/or experience?  Is it just a suicide mission and no need for training?

1 hour ago, auburnatl1 said:

high capacity assault rifles for home protection or hunting

I don’t believe too many hunters advocate for high capacity *assault rifles* for hunting.  Home protection is another story.

1 hour ago, auburnatl1 said:

to now blame social media as the new bugaboo (ps Aufamily is social media) for this mess is, respectfully imo, damn silly.

I do recall in days past that some posters on the main board were threatening other posters with bodily harm at some point.  Weird, I know, but you can’t control other’s perception of what they read or believe.  Perception is the underlying issue with people being violent, the tool they use to commit the violence is optional.

[auburnatl1 5,010]

18 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Perception is the underlying issue with people being violent, the tool they use to commit the violence is optional.

I generally agree. The sad truth is that you can’t completely identify or predict violence and mental illness - so you can’t reasonably protect a small group of people from crazy, when armed with a machete or revolver.  It’s the next 30 victims where the issue of assault rifles becomes the points.

Scale.

[I_M4_AU 7,957]

3 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

It’s the next 30 victims where the issue of assault rifles becomes the points.

Those are the people who are he!! bent on taking as many as possible with them.  I don’t know the solution, but it has to be a multi-pronged approach.  Trying to retrieve millions of 30 round magazines will be an impossible task.

[autigeremt 6,666]

22 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

AAAnnnddd...30-40 years ago we had guns and no issues with mass shootings. The guns haven't changed, the people have. If you want to test for mental illness before selling a gun to someone, I will be your biggest supporter. If you want to add M4A and wildly alter Mental Illness Care, I will be your biggest supporter. What I expect is that NONE of that will happen or is even talked about.

They don’t want to fix the problem. The problem helps to win elections. 

[AU9377 5,025]

The point of this topic wasn't to debate the similarities between social media and guns.  The point was the circus that some Senators put on yelling at social media executives and demanding they solve a problem that they themselves are not fully responsible for, while never being as animated and demanding of the gun lobby.  The reason is clear.  Their pockets and campaigns are supported by the gun lobby.  That makes their demands and name calling all the more theatrical and less sincere.

[I_M4_AU 7,957]

3 hours ago, AU9377 said:

The point of this topic wasn't to debate the similarities between social media and guns.  The point was the circus that some Senators put on yelling at social media executives and demanding they solve a problem that they themselves are not fully responsible for, while never being as animated and demanding of the gun lobby.  The reason is clear.  Their pockets and campaigns are supported by the gun lobby.  That makes their demands and name calling all the more theatrical and less sincere.

Is Section 230 similar to a lobby only not paid?  That section is what seems to allow social media to exist without be held liable for their content.  Are they yelling to get rid of or lessen the impact of Section 230?

[DKW 86 7,440]

On 2/6/2024 at 12:00 PM, homersapien said:

Guns haven't changed???

No, not really. A bolt action is still a bolt action, semi-automatic is still a semi-automatic, etc etc etc. The magazines are bigger, but guns are still guns. 

[AU9377 5,025]

56 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Is Section 230 similar to a lobby only not paid?  That section is what seems to allow social media to exist without be held liable for their content.  Are they yelling to get rid of or lessen the impact of Section 230?

Section 230 is the law that shields online platforms from liability resulting from something posted by a third party.  The law does contain exceptions.  Without some protections, platforms like Youtube wouldn't exist.  All platforms, including message boards, would look to be based out of foreign jurisdictions that shield them from liability.

[I_M4_AU 7,957]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

Section 230 is the law that shields online platforms from liability resulting from something posted by a third party.  The law does contain exceptions.  Without some protections, platforms like Youtube wouldn't exist.  All platforms, including message boards, would look to be based out of foreign jurisdictions that shield them from liability.

So, social media platforms and gun manufacturers are shielded from liabilities, but in different ways?

[AU9377 5,025]

48 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

So, social media platforms and gun manufacturers are shielded from liabilities, but in different ways?

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act shields manufacturers of firearms from liability.  The law does provide some limited exceptions.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s397

The point is that it takes a high degree of hypocrisy to tell one group they have blood on their hands while refusing to question anything the other does.

[DKW 86 7,440]

13 hours ago, AU9377 said:

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act shields manufacturers of firearms from liability.  The law does provide some limited exceptions.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s397

The point is that it takes a high degree of hypocrisy to tell one group they have blood on their hands while refusing to question anything the other does.

Devils Advocate question here. But if someone overdoses on legally prescribed by a doctor drugs, illegally operates his car and kills folks in his car, just how much liability do the drug makers and car makers need? If someone is OBVIOUSLY misusing your product, can you rationally make the argument in a courtroom that they should be held liable for what someone else did illegally? If a hunting rifle is used to kill someone, can you really tell me that misusing the weapon is cause for a liability claim on the manufacturer?

Reality check: Gun deaths in America prove out that rifles with huge magazines still account for almost an insignificant amount of all gun deaths. Seems we need to control handguns that affect 96+% of the gun deaths in America. Yet we talk incessantly about the actual extremely low number of deaths by rifle and do NOTHING about hand gun deaths. Just a glaringly obvious swing and a miss by supposedly educated people. 

Edited February 8 by DKW 86

[CoffeeTiger 5,165]

 

30 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Reality check: Gun deaths in America prove out that rifles with huge magazines still account for almost an insignificant amount of all gun deaths. Seems we need to control handguns that affect 96+% of the gun deaths in America. Yet we talk incessantly about the actual extremely low number of deaths by rifle and do NOTHING about hand gun deaths. Just a glaringly obvious swing and a miss by supposedly educated people. 

 

The reason for this is because the only time anyone in America talks much about gun deaths is when a school or public areas are shot up in mass, which is often done with higher magazine rifles. 

100 people killing 100 other people with small handguns in separate instances is a statistic 

1 person killing 20 children with a rifle in a school is a tragedy and garners more outrage. 

[AU9377 5,025]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

Devils Advocate question here. But if someone overdoses on legally prescribed by a doctor drugs, illegally operates his car and kills folks in his car, just how much liability do the drug makers and car makers need? If someone is OBVIOUSLY misusing your product, can you rationally make the argument in a courtroom that they should be held liable for what someone else did illegally? If a hunting rifle is used to kill someone, can you really tell me that misusing the weapon is cause for a liability claim on the manufacturer?

Reality check: Gun deaths in America prove out that rifles with huge magazines still account for almost an insignificant amount of all gun deaths. Seems we need to control handguns that affect 96+% of the gun deaths in America. Yet we talk incessantly about the actual extremely low number of deaths by rifle and do NOTHING about hand gun deaths. Just a glaringly obvious swing and a miss by supposedly educated people. 

I agree with that argument. 

My personal opinion is that the above argument can be true and governments still have the capability of regulating firearms.

[homersapien 11,428]

20 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

No, not really. A bolt action is still a bolt action, semi-automatic is still a semi-automatic, etc etc etc. The magazines are bigger, but guns are still guns. 

Right.  And a musket is still a musket.

What I was (obviously) referring to is the increase of the numbers of assault rifles in this country.  We are awash in them..

https://www.kcur.org/podcast/up-to-date/2023-09-29/u-s-civilians-own-an-estimated-20-million-ar-15s-how-the-rifle-became-a-political-symbol

And to your earlier point, there has been a corresponding increase of semi-automatic pistols.

The quantitative increase in these weapons represents a sea change from 50 years ago.

 

Edited February 8 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,428]

4 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Devils Advocate question here. But if someone overdoses on legally prescribed by a doctor drugs, illegally operates his car and kills folks in his car, just how much liability do the drug makers and car makers need? If someone is OBVIOUSLY misusing your product, can you rationally make the argument in a courtroom that they should be held liable for what someone else did illegally? If a hunting rifle is used to kill someone, can you really tell me that misusing the weapon is cause for a liability claim on the manufacturer?

Reality check: Gun deaths in America prove out that rifles with huge magazines still account for almost an insignificant amount of all gun deaths. Seems we need to control handguns that affect 96+% of the gun deaths in America. Yet we talk incessantly about the actual extremely low number of deaths by rifle and do NOTHING about hand gun deaths. Just a glaringly obvious swing and a miss by supposedly educated people. 

Do you think Perdue Pharma should be held responsible for their aggressive mass marketing strategies which resulted in huge increases of addictions to oxycontin?

 

[DKW 86 7,440]

17 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

 

The reason for this is because the only time anyone in America talks much about gun deaths is when a school or public areas are shot up in mass, which is often done with higher magazine rifles. 

100 people killing 100 other people with small handguns in separate instances is a statistic 

1 person killing 20 children with a rifle in a school is a tragedy and garners more outrage. 

You know you just quoted Stalin right. 

[DKW 86 7,440]

13 hours ago, homersapien said:

Do you think Perdue Pharma should be held responsible for their aggressive mass marketing strategies which resulted in huge increases of addictions to oxycontin?

 

Yes that was not a legal, sound, etc. policy. It was done drive profits. The only acting illegal was Big Pharma.