• Okay, here we go again (but are things different this time?)

    From Digital Man@VERT to All on Sun Feb 18 13:58:02 2018
    I just read this article/blog post or whatever: https://agingmillennialengineer.com/2018/02/15/fuck-you-i-like-guns-2/

    He makes a good point. Of course, here in California, we already have a lot of laws limiting the types of guns and magazine and ammo that can be bought and sold. Those laws don't seem to make much difference. We've had our share of mass shootings and I hope it's a long long time before we have another one. But if we have one soon, I won't be too shocked. :-(

    I have 2 completely unrelated sets of friends that were both at the Vegas concert and were shot at (one's companion was shot and killed). Hunting rifles actually make good sniper rifles, but that guy didn't use a hunting or a sniper rifle, he used "military style" rifles with bump-stocks (apparently) to attain automatic-like rapid-fire, to a horrible effect. If that shooter were limited to lower cap mags and didn't have any kind of rapid fire accessory, there would have been fewer injuries and deaths. I totally believe that. But laws have stopped him? I doubt it.

    I know one of the sets of friends shot at owns guns themselves (probably both, but I don't know for sure) and when they returned from Vegas, they didn't get rid of their guns. I don't think I would either. Guns (of any kind) can help you feel at least somewhat prepared for the unexpected: natural disaster, war, famine, whatever - any kind of mass survival "event" where those with a firearm are more likely to survive. And then of course there's the possibility a gun saving your or a loved one's life in a home invasion or other criminal act, though that seems exceedingly rare (the successfully use of a gun in self-defense).

    I have 3 daughters in 3 different public schools and I feel their vulnerability. I trust in my community's sanity (do I have a choice?) and their ability to protect my girls (really?)... so yeah, I worry.

    The million dollar question: why all the mass shootings?

    We 'mericans have had many guns for hundreds of years and while mass killings have happened through-out that time, they're increasing at an alarming rate. Why?

    I don't think it's the types of guns/mags/ammo/gear available.

    I don't think it's video games or movies.

    I think mental illness plays a major role and our methods of diagnosing and treating it. What has changed?

    We used to recognize mental illness at a pretty young age (usually) and place those people in institutions, often for life. There was a big backlash against mental institutions in the 1960's (ever see One Flew Over The Cockoo's Nest?) and they were all shuttered and the patients released (which is why we have such a homelessness problem). https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/i-hate-you-dont-leave-me/201110/whatever-h appened-intensive-mental-health-treatement http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-mental-patients-began. html

    Now, when we diagnose mental illness, we give those people (often our own children) psychotropic drugs which may make them more psychotic or depressed and we leave it to them to self-administer (which they may or may not do). Then we just let them roam our society, hoping they don't become serial killers, rapists or mass murderers.

    Is this the FBI's fault? I don't see how.

    Is this the NRA's fault? I don't see how.

    Is this Hollywood and video game studios' fault? I don't think so.

    Though there is a ton of money in gun-sales and movies and video games, they pale in comparison to "big pharma" and the health insurance companies. The pharma and insurance companies have a ton of power and money and have no qualms about medicating our mentally sick with experimental drugs that may do them (and others) more harm than good.

    Yeah, Obamacare can help these patients afford the prescriptions, if they actually see a doctor and get/fill the prescriptions. And if they actually take the medicine, they may get better and may stay better (if they continue to self-administer, which they usually don't) - or the meds actually make them worse and they harm themselves (e.g. Robin Williams) or others (see https://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/).

    If the mental health drugs and lack of accute treatment are the problem, and it seems there's a lot evidence of that, then there's a lot of money at stake (lawsuits, FDA license revocations, budget allotments) - and a lot of people want to protect their cash cows. I think this is why there is so much finger pointing in other directions. The pharma and medical ins. companies fund the mass media (notice how many drug commercials there are these days?) and they don't want their world rocked... and they don't really care about our dead children. :-(

    digital man

    This Is Spinal Tap quote #13:
    Nigel Tufnel: You can't really dust for vomit.
    Norco, CA WX: 66.9F, 40.0% humidity, 15 mph ESE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs ---
    Synchronet Vertrauen Home of Synchronet [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
  • From Al@VERT/TRMB to Digital Man on Sun Feb 18 14:53:55 2018
    Re: Okay, here we go again (but are things different this time?)
    By: Digital Man to All on Sun Feb 18 2018 01:58 pm

    The million dollar question: why all the mass shootings?

    We 'mericans have had many guns for hundreds of years and while mass killings have happened through-out that time, they're increasing at an alarming rate. Why?

    I read about this shortly after in happened on CBC. They also mentioned that this was the 17th gun related incident this year in the US although the others may not have been as news worthy it an alarming number.

    Ttyl :-),
    Al


    ... She kept saying I didn't listen to her, or something like that.

    ---
    Synchronet The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada - trmb.synchro.net
  • From Gandolf@VERT to Digital Man on Sun Feb 18 17:21:52 2018
    The article you posted ---
    Not a fan of his opinion.
    My opinion, OTOH, resides simply as this:

    Why are people blaming inanimate objects for death and destruction?
    Guns, much like cars, are machines. Nothing more.
    Cars (and guns) literally don't do anything until a person makes that
    machine do something. (Start the engine, load and fire the weapon, etc.)

    I've always held the logic / analogy of:
    Taking away guns from law-abiding citizens in order to prevent more
    deaths holds exactly the same logic as taking away cars from good
    drivers because bad drivers are involved in vehicular homicides.
    (Doesn't make sense, does it?)

    Do I have a solution to the shootings?

    Nope.

    Each and every time something like that happens, I again realize that it
    was an evil person who did the killing. The tool or machine which was
    used to deliver such evil is irrelevant.
    (Timothy McVeigh is a prime example of that logic. 168 people died
    without a single firearm being used.)


    But hey. I'm probably going to get flamed because of my opinion.
    Whatever.

    The only reason I am writing this is because the subject was brought up.
    This is merely my response.

    Respectfully;
    ---
    Gandolf




    On 02/18/2018 02:58 PM, Digital Man wrote:
    I just read this article/blog post or whatever: https://agingmillennialengineer.com/2018/02/15/fuck-you-i-like-guns-2/

    He makes a good point. Of course, here in California, we already have a lot of
    laws limiting the types of guns and magazine and ammo that can be bought and sold. Those laws don't seem to make much difference. We've had our share of mass shootings and I hope it's a long long time before we have another one. But
    if we have one soon, I won't be too shocked. :-(

    I have 2 completely unrelated sets of friends that were both at the Vegas concert and were shot at (one's companion was shot and killed). Hunting rifles
    actually make good sniper rifles, but that guy didn't use a hunting or a sniper
    rifle, he used "military style" rifles with bump-stocks (apparently) to attain
    automatic-like rapid-fire, to a horrible effect. If that shooter were limited to lower cap mags and didn't have any kind of rapid fire accessory, there would
    have been fewer injuries and deaths. I totally believe that. But laws have stopped him? I doubt it.

    I know one of the sets of friends shot at owns guns themselves (probably both,
    but I don't know for sure) and when they returned from Vegas, they didn't get rid of their guns. I don't think I would either. Guns (of any kind) can help you feel at least somewhat prepared for the unexpected: natural disaster, war,
    famine, whatever - any kind of mass survival "event" where those with a firearm
    are more likely to survive. And then of course there's the possibility a gun saving your or a loved one's life in a home invasion or other criminal act, though that seems exceedingly rare (the successfully use of a gun in self-defense).

    I have 3 daughters in 3 different public schools and I feel their vulnerability. I trust in my community's sanity (do I have a choice?) and their
    ability to protect my girls (really?)... so yeah, I worry.

    The million dollar question: why all the mass shootings?

    We 'mericans have had many guns for hundreds of years and while mass killings have happened through-out that time, they're increasing at an alarming rate. Why?

    I don't think it's the types of guns/mags/ammo/gear available.

    I don't think it's video games or movies.

    I think mental illness plays a major role and our methods of diagnosing and treating it. What has changed?

    We used to recognize mental illness at a pretty young age (usually) and place those people in institutions, often for life. There was a big backlash against
    mental institutions in the 1960's (ever see One Flew Over The Cockoo's Nest?) and they were all shuttered and the patients released (which is why we have such a homelessness problem). https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/i-hate-you-dont-leave-me/201110/whatever-h
    appened-intensive-mental-health-treatement http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-mental-patients-began.
    html

    Now, when we diagnose mental illness, we give those people (often our own children) psychotropic drugs which may make them more psychotic or depressed and we leave it to them to self-administer (which they may or may not do). Then
    we just let them roam our society, hoping they don't become serial killers, rapists or mass murderers.

    Is this the FBI's fault? I don't see how.

    Is this the NRA's fault? I don't see how.

    Is this Hollywood and video game studios' fault? I don't think so.

    Though there is a ton of money in gun-sales and movies and video games, they pale in comparison to "big pharma" and the health insurance companies. The pharma and insurance companies have a ton of power and money and have no qualms
    about medicating our mentally sick with experimental drugs that may do them (and others) more harm than good.

    Yeah, Obamacare can help these patients afford the prescriptions, if they actually see a doctor and get/fill the prescriptions. And if they actually take
    the medicine, they may get better and may stay better (if they continue to self-administer, which they usually don't) - or the meds actually make them worse and they harm themselves (e.g. Robin Williams) or others (see https://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/).

    If the mental health drugs and lack of accute treatment are the problem, and it
    seems there's a lot evidence of that, then there's a lot of money at stake (lawsuits, FDA license revocations, budget allotments) - and a lot of people want to protect their cash cows. I think this is why there is so much finger pointing in other directions. The pharma and medical ins. companies fund the mass media (notice how many drug commercials there are these days?) and they don't want their world rocked... and they don't really care about our dead children. :-(

    digital man

    This Is Spinal Tap quote #13:
    Nigel Tufnel: You can't really dust for vomit.
    Norco, CA WX: 66.9�F, 40.0% humidity, 15 mph ESE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs

    ---
    Synchronet Vertrauen Home of Synchronet [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
  • From Al@VERT/TRMB to Gandolf on Sun Feb 18 17:02:52 2018
    Re: Re: Okay, here we go again (but are things different this time?)
    By: Gandolf to Digital Man on Sun Feb 18 2018 05:21 pm

    I've always held the logic / analogy of:
    Taking away guns from law-abiding citizens in order to prevent more
    deaths holds exactly the same logic as taking away cars from good
    drivers because bad drivers are involved in vehicular homicides.
    (Doesn't make sense, does it?)

    Nope, it just doesn't. If somebody wants to kill somebody there are many ways to do it. The 911 attackers used airplanes (big ones loaded with fuel).

    Ttyl :-),
    Al


    ... Proofread carefully to see if you any words out

    ---
    Synchronet The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada - trmb.synchro.net
  • From Digital Man@VERT to Gandolf on Sun Feb 18 19:48:37 2018
    Re: Re: Okay, here we go again (but are things different this time?)
    By: Gandolf to Digital Man on Sun Feb 18 2018 05:21 pm

    The article you posted ---
    Not a fan of his opinion.
    My opinion, OTOH, resides simply as this:

    Why are people blaming inanimate objects for death and destruction?
    Guns, much like cars, are machines. Nothing more.
    Cars (and guns) literally don't do anything until a person makes that machine do something. (Start the engine, load and fire the weapon, etc.)

    True, but some machines are rigtfully illegal, no? Like, you don't think regular citizens should be allowed to own an operational tank or bazooka do you?

    So there's a line somewhere. We have different lines (regarding what's legal or not in regards to guns) in different states already. We could adjust those lines, but I'm doubtful it would actually make much difference.

    I've always held the logic / analogy of:
    Taking away guns from law-abiding citizens in order to prevent more
    deaths holds exactly the same logic as taking away cars from good
    drivers because bad drivers are involved in vehicular homicides.
    (Doesn't make sense, does it?)

    No, but we also don't allow unsafe vehicles on the road either. Nor do we allow (what civilization has determined to be) unsafe guns in the hands of regular citizens. It's a decent analogy and we have existing limits/laws in both cases.


    digital man

    Synchronet/BBS Terminology Definition #40:
    POP3 = Post Office Protocol version 3
    Norco, CA WX: 52.9F, 75.0% humidity, 3 mph ESE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs ---
    Synchronet Vertrauen Home of Synchronet [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Digital Man on Sun Feb 18 22:24:17 2018
    Re: Okay, here we go again (but are things different this time?)
    By: Digital Man to All on Sun Feb 18 2018 01:58 pm

    Now, when we diagnose mental illness, we give those people (often our own children) psychotropic drugs which may make them more psychotic or depressed and we leave it to them to self-administer (which they may or may not do). Then we just let them roam our society, hoping they don't become serial killers, rapists or mass murderers.

    Is this the FBI's fault? I don't see how.

    Is this the NRA's fault? I don't see how.

    Is this Hollywood and video game studios' fault? I don't think so.

    Though there is a ton of money in gun-sales and movies and video games, they


    one thing you will notice in all of these cases people werent doing their
    part to report the dangerous person, or people that didnt care just let the person slip through the cracks.

    as a society we do not protect eachother. for the most part we dont take care of our fellow man.

    also, these media reports seem to give these other future shooters ideas.
    ---
    Synchronet ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From MRO@VERT/BBSESINF to Al on Sun Feb 18 22:25:32 2018
    Re: Re: Okay, here we go again (but are things different this time?)
    By: Al to Gandolf on Sun Feb 18 2018 05:02 pm

    Re: Re: Okay, here we go again (but are things different this time?)
    By: Gandolf to Digital Man on Sun Feb 18 2018 05:21 pm

    I've always held the logic / analogy of:
    Taking away guns from law-abiding citizens in order to prevent more deaths holds exactly the same logic as taking away cars from good drivers because bad drivers are involved in vehicular homicides. (Doesn't make sense, does it?)

    Nope, it just doesn't. If somebody wants to kill somebody there are many ways to do it. The 911 attackers used airplanes (big ones loaded with fuel).



    we're lucky we dont have people poisioning our medicines or our food and water. ---
    Synchronet ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
  • From Denn@VERT/OUTWEST to Al on Sun Feb 18 20:05:47 2018
    Re: Okay, here we go again (but are things different this time?)
    By: Al to Digital Man on Sun Feb 18 2018 02:53 pm

    We 'mericans have had many guns for hundreds of years and while mass
    killings have happened through-out that time, they're increasing at
    an alarming rate. Why?

    good question, no easy answers there.

    I read about this shortly after in happened on CBC. They also mentioned that this was the 17th gun related incident this year in the US although the others may not have been as news worthy it an alarming number.

    CBS was wrong on that reporting, several of the reports were accidental discharges, one or two were shots fired that never injured anyone (still bad tho).
    One is to many
    I believe I heard the actual number reported as 5 or 6 still way to many.

    "... I may be schizophrenic, but at least I'll always have each other."

    ---
    Synchronet the Outwest BBS - outwestbbs.com Telnet - outwestbbs.com:23