school shooting survivor suicides

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 26, 2019 23:27:26 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

I went looking for 18th Century revolvers (1700s) not finding ten bullet revolvers unless you mean the shooter shoots maybe six and then refills his weapon all within ten seconds.

Shoots six, reloads, shoots six more, in under ten seconds.

Some modern marksmen can get 16 shots on target in under 4 seconds (8-round revolver, empty the cylinder, reload, empty the cylinder).

I gave you the opportunity to watch someone shoot a semi-assault weapon and get 10 bullets out 10 seconds. You declined to watch it.

It's vile and watching it serves no purpose.

Its only legitimate usefulness in a gun control debate is to convince doubters of the destructive capacity of modern arms, or to convince the morally ambivalent that a mass shooting is a terrible and senseless act. I am neither a doubter nor morally ambivalent.

I don't understand your '10 bullets in 10 seconds' pronouncement followed by "Handguns, hunting rifles and the like can be left alone." I know you're aware that virtually all handguns (and probably some hunting rifles) are capable of unloading at least 10 rounds in 10 seconds. Hence either your standard for 'ban-worthy weapon' is more qualified than 10 rounds/10 seconds or else you believe a great many more conventional arms also ought to be banned.

[Tennesseer]

Mar 27, 2019 7:24:31 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 26, 2019 23:27:26 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

I went looking for 18th Century revolvers (1700s) not finding ten bullet revolvers unless you mean the shooter shoots maybe six and then refills his weapon all within ten seconds.

Shoots six, reloads, shoots six more, in under ten seconds.

Some modern marksmen can get 16 shots on target in under 4 seconds (8-round revolver, empty the cylinder, reload, empty the cylinder).

I gave you the opportunity to watch someone shoot a semi-assault weapon and get 10 bullets out 10 seconds. You declined to watch it.

It's vile and watching it serves no purpose.

Its only legitimate usefulness in a gun control debate is to convince doubters of the destructive capacity of modern arms, or to convince the morally ambivalent that a mass shooting is a terrible and senseless act. I am neither a doubter nor morally ambivalent.

I don't understand your '10 bullets in 10 seconds' pronouncement followed by "Handguns, hunting rifles and the like can be left alone." I know you're aware that virtually all handguns (and probably some hunting rifles) are capable of unloading at least 10 rounds in 10 seconds. Hence either your standard for 'ban-worthy weapon' is more qualified than 10 rounds/10 seconds or else you believe a great many more conventional arms also ought to be banned.

That pause to reload that six shooter during those total ten seconds may result in the shooter being shot him/herself.  Probably happened a lot in the 18th century. 


I have zero interest in banning handguns and hunting rifles.

[OldCoyote]

It is not the guns that are killing people,, it is people killing people!

That is what is needed to be controlled.

In the last couple of decades the largest mass killings of American people were done with a couple of airplanes, and a truck full of fertilizer!

Maybe those need banned!

I would put the little guy rolling around LOLing except this is not funny.

[swamp]

In case you haven't noticed, a whole governmental agency sprung up to combat terrorism on airplanes.  It's called the TSA.  They have lots and lots of rules about what you can and cannot bring on a plane, and the rules constantly change in an effort to keep up with what people are trying to do.   

And you now also have to identify yourself when you buy large quantities of fertilizer.   

Try to keep up.  

[Deleted]

Mar 26, 2019 15:03:02 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Mar 26, 2019 12:45:47 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

What bothers me (and should bother gun control proponents ) is that the kinds of gun controls that would have the biggest impact--by factors of hundreds--have nothing to do with mass shootings.

I can get behind wait periods (for suicides, impulse murders), temporary bans following domestic abuse convictions (again, to reduce fatalities from impulse murders), and closing background check loopholes at gun shows.

What do these have to do with mass shootings? Nothing.

Mass shootings are an anomaly. A hyperextraordinary, statistically insignificant event in Earth's yearly quota of violence. They're the equivalent of moose strikes in a roundtable discussion on how best to improve car safety.

They may serve as formidable tools for emotional manipulation, but their exploitation breeds deep resentment and hostility, which has led to the indifference, the conspiracy theories, the hair-trigger sensitivity, the unconditional support for the NRA, and the intransigent attitudes--all of it. Mass shootings are not the platform on which to have a productive gun control debate, and they have nothing to do with the kinds of gun control that will save lives in America.

Gun control is inexorably one of those issues where you have to avoid emotional contexts, target only the biggest problems with the least invasive controls, beat people to death with statistics (which you kinda sorta started to do in your previous post, which is why I 'liked' it), and let people's minds change over the span of a generation (as is presently occurring), with patience and longsuffering. You also have to be content with the inherent costs of the 2A. That is, even with all the peripheral gun controls in the world, there are always going to be a lot of gun-related deaths when people can freely own, carry, and employ handguns.

The problem with trying to get any of the 'sensible' changes to the gun law completed is that the NRA has always been so aggressive in defeating even the smallest proposed changes, and they had the money and the political clout to frighten lawmakers away from them. The NRA even managed to convince lawmakers to not allow the CDC to research statistics about gun deaths.

If the NRA has become less popular, if the stink about the NRA accepting funds from Russia that it may have illegally funneled to Trump is damaging enough, and if the grass roots organizations promoting changes to the gun laws get more powerful, perhaps we can finally get some changes that most Americans would agree are sensible. Maybe we can even get a law passed that doctors and school teachers have a 'duty to report' if a patient/student threatens to bring a gun to work or school - the same kind of 'duty to report' that we use to report potential child abuse.  That might actually help identify mass shooters before they act. We can hope.

The reason for this reaction from the 'go to' gun owners club (NRA), is that the more recent efforts for gun control are 'inch at a time' restrictions.

The logical way to meet this ?

Don't give an inch.  (bolded)


It's fun for gun control proponents to label gun owners as ignorant, back water, idiots.

Less fun for them to have their small increment restrictions easily seen for what they are, and continuously countered quite effectively, by those supposed idiots. 


As an aside, "sensible" is just one of the buzzwords from the gun control club.

Not very sensible for those from the other side of the discussion.

Our buzzwords are freedom/liberty.

[Deleted]

Mar 26, 2019 11:21:25 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Mar 26, 2019 9:08:11 GMT -5 @x said:

Really easy to check into, when comes to rabbit hole money and groundswell report.

You just check into how many dues paying members there are in the NRA and all the state associations that are similar in function.  And how much money they spend.

Then compare the number of dues paying members that belong to the gun control groups.  And how much money they spend.

Not to soon to see what's going on right now.

For now, the could be's, maybe's, and  possibly's, are just wishful speculation.

Nope. The rabbit hole I'm referring to is the Russians funneling lots of cash to the NRA.

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/01/nra-russia-investigations-gun-lobby

Questions about the NRA’s Moscow ties and the gun group’s role in the 2016 elections were also spurred when McClatchy reported last year that the FBI was looking into allegations that Torshin and other Russians may have improperly funneled Russian funds into NRA coffers as part of its record setting $30m in pro-Trump spending.

So how much Russian money got to Trump's campaign via the NRA? It's not easy to check into, as you imply - however, both the House and Senate are investigating it, so maybe one of the less corrupt GOPers might spill the beans.

As for your question about dues paying members and the NRA- they had 55 million less in contributions in 2017 compared to 2016.  That included a 35 million downturn in dues collected, 'a sign that hints at dwindling support.'

fortune.com/2018/11/27/after-nra-reports-massive-drop-in-contributions-gun-stocks-take-a-hit/

Poor NRA. They should really be rooting for another black president, the last one really jumped gun sales and membership for them, didn't he?  Trump's done the opposite.

You seem to have misread this part in regards to popularity.  As your post # 28 was claiming, and I was answering  (bolded) 


Quote;  You just check into how many dues paying members there are in the NRA and all the state associations that are similar in function. And how much money they spend.

Then compare the number of dues paying members that belong to the gun control groups. And how much money they spend.


As for the rest of your post ?

You're really all over the place with redundancies.

Are you just doing the usual posturing thing ? 

A lot of the usual maybe's ?

We should have an investigation, lol.


In the other multiple topics covered by your current post that I'm quoting, you might want to re-read my post # 44 that already answered the questions your re-posting from your previous posts on this thread.

In regards to gun sales, administration changes, etc.


Black presidents don't matter to gun owners, gun restricting presidents do.

Nice try on the race card.

[OldCoyote]

Mar 27, 2019 10:29:49 GMT -5 swamp said:

In case you haven't noticed, a whole governmental agency sprung up to combat terrorism on airplanes.  It's called the TSA.  They have lots and lots of rules about what you can and cannot bring on a plane, and the rules constantly change in an effort to keep up with what people are trying to do.   

And you now also have to identify yourself when you buy large quantities of fertilizer.   

Try to keep up.  

Are you saying that the TSA is so good It will not happen again?

[OldCoyote]

If some one wanted, they could go to several Home Depot's, Lowe's, garden centers everywhere,

Buy some here some there, always pay cash.

[OldCoyote]

Remember the Boston Bomber. used a pressure cooker, broke open firecrackers for the powder.

[Virgil Showlion]

I'm not going to share the details here, but I've taken part in academic blue-sky discussions with other engineers about just how easy it would be to kill 100K, 200K, even a million people, if i) you had $100K and six months to plan, ii) you didn't care specifically who you killed, iii) you didn't expect to live/get away, and iv) you possessed certain esoteric technological/industrial knowledge that some engineers possess.

Our industries use so many phenomenally dangerous, lethal agents. Our power, water, and food supplies are terrifyingly vulnerable. There are so many vectors for attack, and so many wicked applications of modern technology.

I personally believe it's Divine intervention that's spared us from attacks with hundreds of thousands or millions dead. If that protection is revoked, I don't even want to know what the world will look like.

This isn't to say mass shootings aren't horrid, tragic events, but they're negligible compared to the damage one man could wreak with sufficient skill, determination, and imagination. And you really wouldn't have to be a genius to be a "supervillain". Just a peculiar combination of knowledgeable, patient, resourceful, and homicidally deranged.

[Deleted]

Mar 29, 2019 9:09:00 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I'm not going to share the details here, but I've taken part in academic blue-sky discussions with other engineers about just how easy it would be to kill 100K, 200K, even a million people, if i) you had $100K and six months to plan, ii) you didn't care specifically who you killed, iii) you didn't expect to live/get away, and iv) you possessed certain esoteric technological/industrial knowledge that some engineers possess.

Our industries use so many phenomenally dangerous, lethal agents. Our power, water, and food supplies are terrifyingly vulnerable. There are so many vectors for attack, and so many wicked applications of modern technology.

I personally believe it's Divine intervention that's spared us from attacks with hundreds of thousands or millions dead. If that protection is revoked, I don't even want to know what the world will look like.

This isn't to say mass shootings aren't horrid, tragic events, but they're negligible compared to the damage one man could wreak with sufficient skill, determination, and imagination. And you really wouldn't have to be a genius to be a "supervillain". Just a peculiar combination of knowledgeable, patient, resourceful, and homicidally deranged.

3 month's, 50k/USD.

You probably didn't talk to many experienced weapons engineers ?


"phenomenally dangerous, lethal agents", is a bit of an understatement.

[weltschmerz]

Mar 29, 2019 9:09:00 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I'm not going to share the details here, but I've taken part in academic blue-sky discussions with other engineers about just how easy it would be to kill 100K, 200K, even a million people, if i) you had $100K and six months to plan, ii) you didn't care specifically who you killed, iii) you didn't expect to live/get away, and iv) you possessed certain esoteric technological/industrial knowledge that some engineers possess.

Our industries use so many phenomenally dangerous, lethal agents. Our power, water, and food supplies are terrifyingly vulnerable. There are so many vectors for attack, and so many wicked applications of modern technology.

I personally believe it's Divine intervention that's spared us from attacks with hundreds of thousands or millions dead. If that protection is revoked, I don't even want to know what the world will look like.

This isn't to say mass shootings aren't horrid, tragic events, but they're negligible compared to the damage one man could wreak with sufficient skill, determination, and imagination. And you really wouldn't have to be a genius to be a "supervillain". Just a peculiar combination of knowledgeable, patient, resourceful, and homicidally deranged.

Right.
Just like "Divine Intervention" prevents hundreds of thousands from dying of cancer and heart attacks.
Just like "Divine Intervention" prevented 100 million from dying of the Spanish Flu.

Oh, wait........

[chiver78]

Mar 29, 2019 9:09:00 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I'm not going to share the details here, but I've taken part in academic blue-sky discussions with other engineers about just how easy it would be to kill 100K, 200K, even a million people, if i) you had $100K and six months to plan, ii) you didn't care specifically who you killed, iii) you didn't expect to live/get away, and iv) you possessed certain esoteric technological/industrial knowledge that some engineers possess.

Our industries use so many phenomenally dangerous, lethal agents. Our power, water, and food supplies are terrifyingly vulnerable. There are so many vectors for attack, and so many wicked applications of modern technology.

I personally believe it's Divine intervention that's spared us from attacks with hundreds of thousands or millions dead. If that protection is revoked, I don't even want to know what the world will look like.

This isn't to say mass shootings aren't horrid, tragic events, but they're negligible compared to the damage one man could wreak with sufficient skill, determination, and imagination. And you really wouldn't have to be a genius to be a "supervillain". Just a peculiar combination of knowledgeable, patient, resourceful, and homicidally deranged.

and I've stood in lines for roller coasters with fellow engineers, discussing how far the carts would fly if a bolt fell out of the track setup and this section of track dropped out vs. that one. usually resulted in people getting out of line near us, and us getting on the ride faster. it's an academic discussion. none of us was about to pull a bolt, just like I have 100% faith that you wouldn't set out to kill 100K people.  what's your point? 

[Tiny]

Mar 29, 2019 14:47:54 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Mar 29, 2019 9:09:00 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I'm not going to share the details here, but I've taken part in academic blue-sky discussions with other engineers about just how easy it would be to kill 100K, 200K, even a million people, if i) you had $100K and six months to plan, ii) you didn't care specifically who you killed, iii) you didn't expect to live/get away, and iv) you possessed certain esoteric technological/industrial knowledge that some engineers possess.

Our industries use so many phenomenally dangerous, lethal agents. Our power, water, and food supplies are terrifyingly vulnerable. There are so many vectors for attack, and so many wicked applications of modern technology.

I personally believe it's Divine intervention that's spared us from attacks with hundreds of thousands or millions dead. If that protection is revoked, I don't even want to know what the world will look like.

This isn't to say mass shootings aren't horrid, tragic events, but they're negligible compared to the damage one man could wreak with sufficient skill, determination, and imagination. And you really wouldn't have to be a genius to be a "supervillain". Just a peculiar combination of knowledgeable, patient, resourceful, and homicidally deranged.

Right.
Just like "Divine Intervention" prevents hundreds of thousands from dying of cancer and heart attacks.
Just like "Divine Intervention" prevented 100 million from dying of the Spanish Flu.

Oh, wait........

IDK,  Virgil has a point -  the whole "God's Will" thing lets everyone off the hook (Even God because God wouldn't do something 'bad' and God's not incompetent - so even when only a few  people who die by gun violence it's God's Will and it isn't "bad". )      It's comforting.   No one's to blame and there's nothing we can do to change things.    (I'm hoping Virgil's God doesn't play favorites and/or isn't kinda incompetent. Cause that's kind of a sucky god - as in shouldn't gods be BETTER than humans?).   Sorry, my atheism is showing.  

[Tiny]

Mar 29, 2019 15:19:12 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Mar 29, 2019 9:09:00 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I'm not going to share the details here, but I've taken part in academic blue-sky discussions with other engineers about just how easy it would be to kill 100K, 200K, even a million people, if i) you had $100K and six months to plan, ii) you didn't care specifically who you killed, iii) you didn't expect to live/get away, and iv) you possessed certain esoteric technological/industrial knowledge that some engineers possess.

Our industries use so many phenomenally dangerous, lethal agents. Our power, water, and food supplies are terrifyingly vulnerable. There are so many vectors for attack, and so many wicked applications of modern technology.

I personally believe it's Divine intervention that's spared us from attacks with hundreds of thousands or millions dead. If that protection is revoked, I don't even want to know what the world will look like.

This isn't to say mass shootings aren't horrid, tragic events, but they're negligible compared to the damage one man could wreak with sufficient skill, determination, and imagination. And you really wouldn't have to be a genius to be a "supervillain". Just a peculiar combination of knowledgeable, patient, resourceful, and homicidally deranged.

and I've stood in lines for roller coasters with fellow engineers, discussing how far the carts would fly if a bolt fell out of the track setup and this section of track dropped out vs. that one. usually resulted in people getting out of line near us, and us getting on the ride faster. it's an academic discussion. none of us was about to pull a bolt, just like I have 100% faith that you wouldn't set out to kill 100K people.  what's your point? 

LOL!  Just discuss elevators failing (getting stuck, falling, making awful noises)  in a crowded Elevator lobby - and you are guaranteed to be able to get on the next one that arrives cause some of the people WON"T get on it while they screw up their courage to get on the next one that comes.    

[Tennesseer]

Mar 29, 2019 16:25:19 GMT -5 Tiny said:

Mar 29, 2019 15:19:12 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

and I've stood in lines for roller coasters with fellow engineers, discussing how far the carts would fly if a bolt fell out of the track setup and this section of track dropped out vs. that one. usually resulted in people getting out of line near us, and us getting on the ride faster. it's an academic discussion. none of us was about to pull a bolt, just like I have 100% faith that you wouldn't set out to kill 100K people.  what's your point? 

LOL!  Just discuss elevators failing (getting stuck, falling, making awful noises)  in a crowded Elevator lobby - and you are guaranteed to be able to get on the next one that arrives cause some of the people WON"T get on it while they screw up their courage to get on the next one that comes.    

The express elevators to the top and back down in the now gone World Trade Center used to be quite the ride. One almost floated in the air while descending.

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 29, 2019 15:19:12 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

just like I have 100% faith that you wouldn't set out to kill 100K people.  what's your point?

That regardless of who I am, you need to have 100% faith I wouldn't set out to kill 100K+ people. There's no way to prevent it through legislation.

[chiver78]

Mar 29, 2019 17:09:27 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 29, 2019 15:19:12 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

just like I have 100% faith that you wouldn't set out to kill 100K people.  what's your point?

That regardless of who I am, you need to have 100% faith I wouldn't set out to kill 100K+ people. There's no way to prevent it through legislation.

fully automatic assault weapons aren't going to kill 100K+ people. that's terrorism, and there are different ways to prevent acts of terrorism. but there is no reason a private citizen has a need for a weapon of that capacity. and I fail to understand how 2A superfanatics can't understand that limiting the existence of these weapons by an almost nil demand is going to make all of us safer. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 29, 2019 17:32:30 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

... and I fail to understand how 2A superfanatics can't understand that limiting the existence of these weapons by an almost nil demand is going to make all of us safer.

Several million Americans own weapons that would be affected by even the most lighthanded prohibitions. That's not an "almost nil demand".

I believe many of these concede that banning the weapons may reduce the number of fatalities in the US, just not by a margin sufficient to justify the loss of liberty and happiness for the multitude who owns them.

It's a values judgment. Liberty vs. security.

[chiver78]

Mar 29, 2019 17:59:04 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 29, 2019 17:32:30 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

... and I fail to understand how 2A superfanatics can't understand that limiting the existence of these weapons by an almost nil demand is going to make all of us safer.

Several million Americans own weapons that would be affected by even the most lighthanded prohibitions. That's not an "almost nil demand".

I believe many of these concede that banning the weapons may reduce the number of fatalities in the US, just not by a margin sufficient to justify the loss of liberty and happiness for the multitude who owns them.

It's a values judgment. Liberty vs. security.

bold - you missed my point entirely. what NEED does a non-soldier have for some of the weapons currently held by private citizens, that a weapon of lighter capacity couldn't handle? "because I can!" isn't a NEED. so there's your almost nil. 

red - do you look down your nose at NZ the same way? just curious. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 29, 2019 18:06:46 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Mar 29, 2019 17:59:04 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Several million Americans own weapons that would be affected by even the most lighthanded prohibitions. That's not an "almost nil demand".

I believe many of these concede that banning the weapons may reduce the number of fatalities in the US, just not by a margin sufficient to justify the loss of liberty and happiness for the multitude who owns them.

It's a values judgment. Liberty vs. security.

bold - you missed my point entirely. what NEED does a non-soldier have for some of the weapons currently held by private citizens, that a weapon of lighter capacity couldn't handle? "because I can!" isn't a NEED. so there's your almost nil. 

red - do you look down your nose at NZ the same way? just curious. 

An "almost nil NEED" and an "almost nil demand" are different things, and you used the latter.

I agree the need for these high-powered rifles is marginal. The only legitimate need I've ever heard of for one is to help repel foreign invaders or a tyrannical government run amok, and men could debate for years whether either need will ever be extant.

Where you get "look[ing] down your nose" from my pointing out that gun control is a values judgment is beyond me. If anyone is looking down their nose, it's you, for asserting your values and judgments are right, and 2A supporters' are wrong. But even this isn't looking down your nose, since I well understand that some values/judgments are superior to others and we have to defend those we're reasonably convinced are superior.

[Deleted]

Mar 29, 2019 17:32:30 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Mar 29, 2019 17:09:27 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

That regardless of who I am, you need to have 100% faith I wouldn't set out to kill 100K+ people. There's no way to prevent it through legislation.

fully automatic assault weapons aren't going to kill 100K+ people. that's terrorism, and there are different ways to prevent acts of terrorism. but there is no reason a private citizen has a need for a weapon of that capacity. and I fail to understand how 2A superfanatics can't understand that limiting the existence of these weapons by an almost nil demand is going to make all of us safer. 

Fully automatic weapons have been illegal for citizens to purchase since 1938.

The law exists, yet you don't feel safe or you wouldn't bring these weapons up in discussion.

What kind of law are you suggesting to limit weapons that are illegal to purchase/own ?


In regards to  Virgil Showlion  point of how easy it is to mass kill millions, and your worry about automatic weapons.

I offer the non classified neutron bomb.

Simple old school tech.

Easily shielded for undetectable transport.

Placed in the center of any large, multi million population city.

A weapons engineer, with my cost/time restraint limits, could easily do this.


There are also biologics, very effective biologics.

These would be used by someone no longer interested in living life.

Which was one of Virgil's concerns.

[Deleted]

Mar 29, 2019 17:59:04 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Mar 29, 2019 17:32:30 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

... and I fail to understand how 2A superfanatics can't understand that limiting the existence of these weapons by an almost nil demand is going to make all of us safer.

Several million Americans own weapons that would be affected by even the most lighthanded prohibitions. That's not an "almost nil demand".

I believe many of these concede that banning the weapons may reduce the number of fatalities in the US, just not by a margin sufficient to justify the loss of liberty and happiness for the multitude who owns them.

It's a values judgment. Liberty vs. security.

That and those very same few million law abiding owners, who own that style of rifle, aren't really ready to disarm themselves for some utopian ideal, when faced with the actuality of the fact that criminals that murder, do exist.

The continual one sided showcasing on the evening news, of just illegal gun usage, hammers home that point, over and over again.