CYCLINGFORUM.COM - Where Cyclists Talk Tech --- Return To Home

 

    Register FAQ'sSearchProfileLog In / Log Out

 

****

cyclingforum.com ****

HOMECLUBS | SPONSORS | FEATURESPHOTO GALLERYTTF DONORS | SHOP FOR GEAR

Return to CyclingForum Home Page CYCLING TECH TALK FORUM
          View posts since last visit

Vista Outdoor; CamelBak,Giro,Bell,Blackburn and more.
 Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Author Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Craig
Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 548

4/3/18 6:27 PM

Shooter at YouTube...

A shooter entered the YouTube headquarters and shot three people before killing herself. Thankfully it seems no one died except for the shooter, though all the facts aren't in yet.

I suspect the solution is to have metal detectors and armed guards at all tech and media companies. Seems reasonable.

 Reply to topic    

Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 16692
Location: Portland, OR

4/3/18 6:31 PM

Just arm the servers at the lunch counters, or invite armed teachers to have lunch there.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Craig
Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 548

4/22/18 6:59 PM

A shooter entered a Waffle House restaurant and shot and killed four people with an assault rifle before being challenged by a patron who managed to disarm the shooter who escaped.

I suspect the solution is to have metal detectors and armed guards at all Waffle Houses (and IHOPs too, for good measure, though obviously Waffle Houses are way cooler. Denny's patrons can suck it). Seems reasonable.


Last edited by Craig on 4/23/18 2:42 AM; edited 1 time in total

 Reply to topic    

dfcas
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 2500
Location: hillbilly heaven

4/22/18 7:07 PM

They should require clothing.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

PLee
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 3606
Location: Brooklyn, NY

4/23/18 7:01 AM

And indoor smoking rooms. Though I'm not sure the three people hanging around outside were smoking.

 Reply to topic    

Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 4162
Location: Nashua, NH

4/23/18 8:01 AM

OK Craig, what's YOUR solution?

It's really easy to make snide comments without offering anything of value.

Let's look at the facts of this shooting:
- The shooters was from Illinois, a state with strict gun laws, but he was able to pass a background check, get the required state and/or local permits and buy guns.

- He was arrested at the White House last year for entering a restricted area.

- After the above incident, his guns were confiscated by local authorities and given to his father, who is apparently an irresponsible moron, because he gave them back to his son.

- The guy is obviously mentally ill, as he broke into a restricted area of the White House and walked into a restaurant wearing nothing but a jacket and killed people for no apparent reason. Local authorities apparently knew of his mental health issues. because they confiscated his weapons.

Why wasn't this guy in treatment? Why was he not being monitored by authorities? Why were his guns given to his father?

So Craig, what is your solution?

It seems pretty obvious that after the incident in Washington, this guy should have been in treatment and/or on medication for whatever mental illness he has. Either that, or he should have been incarcerated. The fault here is clearly that we have no functional mental healthcare system in this country.

The state authorities should have had him adjudicated as "mentally defective". In that case he loses his Second Amendment rights until his mental health problems are corrected, if they ever are. His firearms could then be removed until such time. Assuming that the judgement data is communicated to the NICS system as it should be, he would no longer be able to legally purchase firearms.

His father should probably be prosecuted as an accessory to murder, for giving him his guns back, but I'll reserve judgement on that until more is known about the circumstances.

And please, don't give me any lame arguments that banning AR-15s would have made any difference. He could have created just as much carnage with a variety of weapons, from other guns to pipe bombs or Molotov cocktails.

No amount of security can protect public places from deranged individuals bent on committing violence. We need to get them off the street and into treatment, and/or confinement in a secure treatment facility. We also need to make sure that they are swiftly put into the NICS system so they cannot buy firearms legally. That may not stop them from acquiring weapons, but it will make it more difficult as they'll have to resort to illegal markets. We also need to crack down HARD on people who sell guns illegally.

 Reply to topic    

henoch
Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 1578

4/23/18 8:46 AM


quote:

And please, don't give me any lame arguments that banning AR-15s would have made any difference. He could have created just as much carnage with a variety of weapons, from other guns to pipe bombs or Molotov cocktails.


And yet all of these shooting are done using AR15's not Molotov cocktails or pipe bombes....

 Reply to topic    

Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 16692
Location: Portland, OR

4/23/18 8:49 AM

"yet all of these shooting are done using AR15's"

There is that.

I'd add that the 'parts' for the other two methods mentioned are illegal when combined to create devices.

Just go get the AR-15 and a bunch of rounds and clips seems the preferred option of convenience. The video games shoot up virtual experiences coming to fruition??


Last edited by Sparky on 4/23/18 11:46 AM; edited 1 time in total

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Jesus Saves
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 1131
Location: South of Heaven

4/23/18 11:16 AM

Philosophical and legal consideration

There is a legal problem with incarcerating/committing/containing the mentally ill. To take away someone's liberty/freedom requires their consent or at least understanding why. I realize this is an overly broad and over simplified explanation. Someone here with legal expertise can articulate this much better than I. I just know from a similiar experience trying to help (nonviolent) homeless get help it becomes a trick legal/civil rights situation real quick. The law errs more on the mentally ill's favor than the state's. [/i]

 Reply to topic    

Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 4162
Location: Nashua, NH

4/23/18 4:19 PM

No doubt

I didn't mean to be overly simplistic. However, the guy was arrested and his firearms taken away, so there was evidently significant evidence that he was a danger to himself or others. I imagine that there will be more information forthcoming about what happened between the White House incident and the shooting. Perhaps people tried to do something or perhaps they just couldn't be bothered. It will be interesting to see and hopefully we'll learn something helpful from it.

 Reply to topic    

Craig
Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 548

4/24/18 8:08 AM

I don't know what the answer is, I just took umbrage with the idea that metal detectors and armed guards was in any way a reasonable approach to the issue, and time and time again there is proof of this being a bad idea, even where metal detectors and armed guards are present.

But I will offer this:

Consistent and universal Federal controls over guns, not state to state rules, are necessary if they are going to be effective. It's the old "weakest link" argument.

2nd Amendment rights are bullshit, even if correctly interpreted, because there is no way that a well regulated militia, or the people, with any of the guns available to them will have any significant effect when resisting a military armed with jets, drones, tanks, high powered fully automatic guns, satellites, helicopters, nuclear weapons and smart bombs etc. Any defense of a person's right to bare arms as a means for resisting an oppressive government or invading forces is a farce.

The AR15 problem: let's suggest for a moment that it's reasonable for people to own guns for hunting, sport, whatnot, and I'm actually a proponent of gun rights, I think people should be able to own guns. Crazy, right? But the tools should reflect the legitimate need of any user. Anyone hunting deer with a semi automatic AR15 with a high capacity clip is just being a dick. There are better weapons. So let's regulate the types of weapons available by reasonable use. Hunting rifles with 5 shot capacity (if you can't shoot the damn thing with 5 shots you shouldn't be hunting), target shooting rifles, shotguns on farms only, or similar, because indulging the use of anything more, or higher capacity is NEVER necessary, not that I can think of anyway, but I'm open to suggestions. I'd even argue that there's not a legitimate need for anything quicker loading than a bolt action weapon. If buddy had entered Waffle House with a bolt action rifle I suspect he would have been taken down even faster with fewer human lives lost.

And instead of sticking band-aids on things, look at the sources of the problems. If the guns were legally purchased (in general for any situation) then there's a problem with the process by which people are allowed to legally purchase guns. If the guns were taken away from someone and given to someone else who could give them back to the original owner then there's still a problem.

I can think of a few steps, like making it illegal for individuals to sell guns. Any gun sale must be done through a registered and licensed dealer with the appropriate checks. Full stop. Even family heirlooms, if a person who owns guns dies, the guns get surrendered to a registered dealer where you have to apply for ownership and if you're licensed to own a gun (people should be licensed to own a gun, they are in Canada where I am, I'm not sure if they are in the US but it doesn't seem like it) And with the proper registration of guns, hold individuals criminally liable for other people using their guns in a crime. In Canada you need to have two locks between the gun and its use when your gun is stored, and it's illegal to store a loaded weapon. So a trigger lock and a locked case, or a trigger lock and a gun safe. Even if this is legislated can it realistically be enforced? Probably not, but the criminal liability for the use of your gun if stolen/accessed illegally will sure make you more careful about putting on a trigger lock and keeping the key in your pocket.

Hand guns are for killing people. That's about it. No need. Technically not even accurate enough in most situations to argue they are useful for target shooting (yes, there are accurate hand guns, only those should be sold? and stored at target ranges?). Self defense? That's a thin argument. It depends on the other person also not having a hand gun. Why wouldn't the other person have a gun? If they are available? As proven by many of the mass shootings, individuals often qualify to own a weapon, until it's too late and they've used that weapon to kill people. So you want a hand gun to protect yourself with? Well, there's a pretty good chance you'll be protecting yourself from another person with a hand gun. Think you can evaluate a situation and get your gun out quicker than the criminal who is bent on shooting you? Maybe you think you can. I doubt it.

So, long winded response only partially complete:

It's really easy to make snide comments without offering anything of value.

I'm reacting to a solution of metal detectors and armed guards as a comment of little value.

Let's look at the facts of this shooting:
- The shooters was from Illinois, a state with strict gun laws, but he was able to pass a background check, get the required state and/or local permits and buy guns.


If the background check was effective as a means of keeping guns out of the hands of people who might use them to hurt innocent people, he wouldn't have passed. This point just proves the point that the system we have isn't good enough, or effective.

- He was arrested at the White House last year for entering a restricted area.

- After the above incident, his guns were confiscated by local authorities and given to his father, who is apparently an irresponsible moron, because he gave them back to his son.


When guns are confiscated from an individual, it makes no sense to give them back to a family member. But maybe it's a 2nd Amendment situation? where the father and the kid were expressing their rights to protest and fight against a government? Taking your guns to Washington is exactly what the 2nd Amendment is for, right? No, I don't think so either. But that's what it's there for according to the NRA.

- The guy is obviously mentally ill, as he broke into a restricted area of the White House and walked into a restaurant wearing nothing but a jacket and killed people for no apparent reason. Local authorities apparently knew of his mental health issues. because they confiscated his weapons.

Why wasn't this guy in treatment? Why was he not being monitored by authorities? Why were his guns given to his father?


You can't force treatment on people, whether it's mental illness, alcoholism, being obese, other. There are probably a whole mess of rights you'd be trampling on by monitoring what a fat person eats. But you've answered a huge question yourself. The father shouldn't have been given the weapons. And when you (are about to) ask me for my solution? First, don't give guns back that have been confiscated. It's so obvious that even you're asking the question.

So Craig, what is your solution?

Require a license and education before giving anyone a gun. There is a strict, 100% compliance test given to Canadians before we are allowed to get a license to buy any gun. If you do ANYTHING wrong during the test you don't get the license. The RCMP want to talk to your spouse, past spouses, character witnesses etc before giving you a license to buy guns. It's a fucking gun, there should be tests and strict controls on who can buy a gun. You can buy an AR15 in Florida without giving your fingerprints, getting a special permit, and there's no waiting period. This is a joke. You can't drive a car without taking a test showing you know how to drive a car. You're going to give a gun to any chump that passes a superficial background check and is 21? Stupid stupid stupid. I mean, what's the background check? "Has Joe shot anyone? Nope? OK. Here's the gun you needed to shoot anybody, and didn't have until passing the test proving you didn't shoot anybody."

It seems pretty obvious that after the incident in Washington, this guy should have been in treatment and/or on medication for whatever mental illness he has. Either that, or he should have been incarcerated. The fault here is clearly that we have no functional mental healthcare system in this country.

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it's not a criminal offense to be mentally ill. Those who are mentally ill should be afforded the support systems they need to cope in society, but incarcerating individuals for being mentally ill isn't reasonable or fair.

The state authorities should have had him adjudicated as "mentally defective". In that case he loses his Second Amendment rights until his mental health problems are corrected, if they ever are. His firearms could then be removed until such time. Assuming that the judgement data is communicated to the NICS system as it should be, he would no longer be able to legally purchase firearms.

These are good steps towards a solution, yes. I agree. Did this happen? Why wasn't it enforced? How do we enforce it moving forward?

His father should probably be prosecuted as an accessory to murder, for giving him his guns back, but I'll reserve judgement on that until more is known about the circumstances.

His father shouldn't have been given the guns without being licensed and trained to own guns. And, yes, if he was given the guns (and assuming he was competent to own guns) he should have understood the severity of giving them back to the person they had been taken from. And he should probably be charged as an accessory, yes. I mean, the police say to you, "we've taken your son's guns because we believe him to be a danger to society" and you give them back to him? Definitely should get charged. Unless, of course, father and son both believed that the government perspective didn't match their personal beliefs, and they were expressing their 2nd Amendment rights to own guns. You can't charge a father for having a political belief in alignment with the 2nd Amendment, right? Right?

And please, don't give me any lame arguments that banning AR-15s would have made any difference. He could have created just as much carnage with a variety of weapons, from other guns to pipe bombs or Molotov cocktails.

And yet they keep using AR15s time and time again. A gun that really has no useful purpose for existing other than to kill lots of people quickly.

No amount of security can protect public places from deranged individuals bent on committing violence. THIS. This is what I'm saying when being critical of armed guards and metal detectors as any kind of a solution. We need to get them off the street and into treatment, and/or confinement in a secure treatment facility. We also need to make sure that they are swiftly put into the NICS system so they cannot buy firearms legally. That may not stop them from acquiring weapons, but it will make it more difficult as they'll have to resort to illegal markets. We also need to crack down HARD on people who sell guns illegally. And I agree with this as well. Well, not the "get them off the street" part. Treatment needs to be available for those who want it. Guns shouldn't. Crack down on people who sell guns illegally, and mostly just make it illegal to sell guns outside of a licensed and regulated retail outlet to licensed individuals. And stop selling guns that have no practical purpose other than making it easy to kill people.

 Reply to topic    

daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 3201
Location: Springfield

4/24/18 11:26 AM

Exactly

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 16692
Location: Portland, OR

4/24/18 11:42 AM

Well, I am not reading that book for a post. ;)

I think we have come full circle on this one.

But have to comment on the civility maintained. Good, great... the tone etc.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 4162
Location: Nashua, NH

4/25/18 5:51 AM

Nice try Craig, but...

...90% of what you're advocating will never happen here because in the US we have the right to keep and bear arms. You can scoff at the Second Amendment all you want, but it's the law of the land here. We don't have to beg the government for permission like you do in Canada.

Whether you agree or not, there are plenty of legitimate recreational uses for a broad spectrum of firearms, even the "dreaded" AR-15. The fact is that there are millions in circulation, yet only a relative handful have been used in crimes. Obviously, broad access to them is not the problem, it's that in a few cases, they're getting into the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

Dismissing self-defense out of hand is simply ridiculous. Firearms are used for this purpose around 1 million times per year in the US, with the majority of such situations being resolved without a single shot being fired. Most of these involve handguns, btw. Compare that with the number of firearms deaths annually and the latter number pales in comparison.

Regarding hunting, most (possibly all) states restrict magazine capacity to 5 rounds for hunting big game.

For the record, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or recreational firearms use.

I am not advocating that people be thrown into our prison system because they're mentally ill, but they should be if they commit crimes, if for no other reason than that it provides and opportunity to examine them thoroughly and assess their state. I don't agree that treatment should only be available "for people who want it". If someone is clearly a danger to themselves or others, I have no problem with confining them to a mental institution if they refuse treatment, for their own protection as well as the public's. Obviously, we don't need these "ticking time bombs" wandering loose in society. We should definitely help them as much as possible, but they are going to forfeit some rights if they're dangerous, not the least of which is their Second Amendment rights.

 Reply to topic    

PLee
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 3606
Location: Brooklyn, NY

4/25/18 7:57 AM

Question: Is the ridiculously high rate of gun violence in this country due to this country's high rate of gun availaability, or is it due to this country's extraordinarily high rate of mental instability?

 Reply to topic    

Brian Nystrom
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 4162
Location: Nashua, NH

4/25/18 10:52 AM

It's cultural

Guns are actually less readily available than they were prior to 1968, when you could buy anything you wanted (other than a machine gun) via mail-order with no federal paperwork involved.

Homicide rates spiked in the '70's and again in the '90's, but believe it or not, they're actually less than half the rate of those spikes now and even slightly lower than during the low point in the '60's.

What's changed is the media bombardment that makes the problem seem like it's getting worse and appears dramatically worse than it actually is. This has also created a culture of celebrity around mass shootings, which seems to be exacerbating the problem, not only in the US. If you want to become famous, just shoot a bunch of people and you'll instantly be all over the news around the world.

It's interesting to note that homicide rates were very low around the turn of the 20th century, but they rose dramatically through the first 3 decades. They dropped substantially after Prohibition ended and into the 50's and 60's, but never to less than 4x their turn-of-the-century rates. I have no idea why,but there seems to have been a cultural shift at that point. Perhaps it may have to do with civil rights related violence and/or the fact that we had fought two world wars, and were engaged in Korea and Vietnam.

BTW, semi-automatic firearms with high-capacity magazines were available this entire time. In fact, up until the AR-style weapons came out, they typically fired much more powerful rounds than the current 5.56 NATO (.22 caliber) round used in the AR. The 5.56 NATO was adopted because it was less lethal and the ammunition was smaller and lighter weight, allowing troops to carry more with them. The same is true of the switch to the 9mm from the .45ACP in military handguns.

Again, you'd never know it based on what you see on the news.

 Reply to topic    

daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 3201
Location: Springfield

4/25/18 2:39 PM

There's no reason to rewrite the book.
There's no reason to rewrite the book review.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/02/12/the-great-crime-decline

Precipitous drop nationwide, narrowing rates between social strata, reawakening of neighborhood spirit as a suppressor, while fearmongering politics keep the issue high in the collective consciousness.

The same fearmongering bully pulpit that boasts "record judicial appointments" and in the same speech paradoxically condemns "political obstruction of judicial appointments" makes sure the safety issue never loses its breath. (Thanks to Chuck Schumer for the analysis.)

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

dddd
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 3221
Location: NorCal

4/26/18 1:34 PM

A look at the numbers break-down would be interesting. I suspect "urban shootings" in relatively low-income areas would top the charts, based on what seems to happen in the surrounding regions here.
Shootings outside of the low-income urban areas nearby are quite a rarity, though occasionally a family dispute turns to violence and I am recalling from recent years two instances of faked robbery/murder (for insurance/inheritance, apparently) that were each found or suspected to be the work of a semi-local entrepeneur's own son.
Another couple of semi-local shootings over the last five years were committed by out-or area urban visitors who were apparently involved in drug dealing-related activities.
And there are a few more where urban criminals have apparently dumped shot-up bodies along our more rural roadways, these turning out to be either gang-related or murder of a girlfriend or spouse.
So far (I've lived here for 18 years), I can recall no AR-15 or heavy-weapons shootings though, not that the type of weapon seemed to be a real factor in the outcome of these murders.
There are also random freeway shootings state-wide, but quite a few other cases where teenage boys maimed or killed people by hurling objects off overpasses at passing traffic.
And there are cases of people using vehicles to run people over, arsonist murderers, and stabbings.
And by the way, gun ownership levels here are higher than anywhere I've lived since my time in the Southeast US, and I feel that this is likely a deterrent to crime coming from outside the area. I also credit cell phones for deterring all kinds of crime, especially targeting cyclists, though I am also aware of a lot of concealed-carrying cyclists as well (often from the legal community).

 Reply to topic    

dddd
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 3221
Location: NorCal

4/26/18 3:13 PM

More on "numbers"

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/04/daniel-zimmerman/cdc-study-confirmed-klecks-2-5-million-defensive-gun-use-statistic-so-they-hid-the-data/

 Reply to topic    

dfcas
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 2500
Location: hillbilly heaven

5/1/18 2:35 PM

Wonder if this is boycott related?

https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2018/05/01/vista-outdoor-becomes-latest-to-get-out-of-the-gun-business

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 16692
Location: Portland, OR

5/1/18 2:42 PM

"Vista Outdoor Inc. said Tuesday, May 1 that....... it would continue to sell ammunition, which it included as one of its core businesses."


Still in the ammunition business, of course. Still a step.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail


Return to CyclingForum Home Page CYCLING TECH TALK FORUM
           View New Threads Since My Last Visit VIEW THREADS SINCE MY LAST VISIT
           Start a New Thread

 Display posts from previous:   


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  
Last Thread | Next Thread  >  

  
  

 


If you enjoy this site, please consider pledging your support

cyclingforum.com - where cyclists talk tech
Cycling TTF Rides Throughout The World

Cyclingforum is powered by SYNCRONICITY.NET in Denver, Colorado -

Powered by phpBB: Copyright 2006 phpBB Group | Custom phpCF Template by Syncronicity