At least a dozen killed in CA bar shooting

[caulfield12]

2 hours ago, greg775 said:

If we all had guns, I guess we could pick off somebody like the Colorado movie theatre killer. Somebody might get a good shot in on him. On the other hand, innocents surely would be killed as well in the crossfire. I have no solution, just sadness and horror.

In a dark/crowded movie theatre when the shooter has the element of surprise (and night-vision goggles) and those in their seats have the initial reaction to think the noise is probably related to the movie/another theatre?

I would say the odds are not going to be in your favor, going up against a guy with an automatic weapon...unless you happen to be carrying similar firepower around with you everywhere you go.

[Y2HH]

8 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

In a dark/crowded movie theatre when the shooter has the element of surprise (and night-vision goggles) and those in their seats have the initial reaction to think the noise is probably related to the movie/another theatre?

I would say the odds are not going to be in your favor, going up against a guy with an automatic weapon...unless you happen to be carrying similar firepower around with you everywhere you go.

In the programming world, they call this sort of thing a nested, "If, Then, Else".

In short, IF this happens, THEN you do X, ELSEwise you do Y, ELSEwise you do Z, ELSEwise you do XyZ, etc., etc. There are an almost infinite number of variables and circumstances you could find yourself in when it comes to gun violence, so it's pointless to speculate which would be beneficial if armed or not. The reality is, legal or not, there are hundreds of millions of them in circulation across the United States, and since we can't just snap our fingers and magically make them all disappear, talking about that as a solution is a complete waste of time.

Here is what I do know, gun free zones don't work, and never have ... and almost every mass shooting takes place in one.

Is the solution arming everybody? I have no idea. Wouldn't that just make things worse? Probably, yeah.

I'm not a pro-gun person, so if they banned guns tomorrow, I wouldn't care. But the reality is, that's not happening anytime soon.

Also to your point about automatic weapons, those are actually already banned/illegal -- yet people still have them, modified or otherwise.

Here is what I do know, I'm not a thoughts and prayers person, but to those of you that are, you should be all out of them by now.

[illinilaw08]

1 hour ago, Y2HH said:

In the programming world, they call this sort of thing a nested, "If, Then, Else".

In short, IF this happens, THEN you do X, ELSEwise you do Y, ELSEwise you do Z, ELSEwise you do XyZ, etc., etc. There are an almost infinite number of variables and circumstances you could find yourself in when it comes to gun violence, so it's pointless to speculate which would be beneficial if armed or not. The reality is, legal or not, there are hundreds of millions of them in circulation across the United States, and since we can't just snap our fingers and magically make them all disappear, talking about that as a solution is a complete waste of time.

Here is what I do know, gun free zones don't work, and never have ... and almost every mass shooting takes place in one.

Is the solution arming everybody? I have no idea. Wouldn't that just make things worse? Probably, yeah.

I'm not a pro-gun person, so if they banned guns tomorrow, I wouldn't care. But the reality is, that's not happening anytime soon.

Also to your point about automatic weapons, those are actually already banned/illegal -- yet people still have them, modified or otherwise.

Here is what I do know, I'm not a thoughts and prayers person, but to those of you that are, you should be all out of them by now.

We kind of do know that's not a viable solution though.  There's a reason this stuff happens in the US with the frequency it does, and not anywhere else in the developed world - and the answer is access to guns.  We also know - based on the number of service members who have been killed by friendly fire - that even in the best trained hands, in high stress situations, mistakes happen.  It's a fantasy that everyone with a firearm turns into John Rambo the second a shooter appears.

Now, I agree - guns are a Pandora's Box that was opened a long time ago, and it's not getting closed.  Simply banning guns is not a viable solution at any level.

I'm not anti-gun - I see their value as a tool for hunting, it's fun to go to a range and shoot.  But the national dialogue on guns has to change (so I definitely agree with your last line).

[Dick Allen]

I just have a hard time finding any logic in the belief that the way to reduce gun violence is more guns. Maybe they shoot this guy. Maybe they shoot more innocents.  I think more guns means more people getting shot. This doesn't happen in every country to the degree it happens here. And there are more guns here than in other countries.

[StrangeSox]

 

[lostfan]

Really tired of people bringing up "PTSD" when a person who commits acts of violence is found to be a veteran. That's an actively harmful stereotype, not just to veterans but people suffering from PTSD (veterans and non-veterans).

[Two-Gun Pete]

On 11/8/2018 at 2:37 PM, caulfield12 said:

So much for hiring ex Marines to guard schools/churches/synagogues/theatres/stadiums...reboot that idea, especially since we have so much common agreement on mental health issues in this country.  

This reads as if you are lumping all ex Marines together as ALL having mental health issues.

 

Care to clarify?

 

7 hours ago, lostfan said:

Really tired of people bringing up "PTSD" when a person who commits acts of violence is found to be a veteran. That's an actively harmful stereotype, not just to veterans but people suffering from PTSD (veterans and non-veterans).

Indeed. The shooter even admitted that he was "insane." PTSD may or may not have had anything to do with it. Being a veteran had fuck-all to do with him being [by his own admission] "insane," but access to guns has a fuck-ton to do with yet another mass shooting, IMO.

Edited November 11, 2018 by Two-Gun Pete

[caulfield12]

48 minutes ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

This reads as if you are:

Lumping all ex Marines together as ALL having mental health issues.

 

Care to clarify?

 

Indeed. The shooter even admitted that he was "insane." PTSD may or may not have had anything to do with it. Being a veteran had fuck-all to do with him being [by his own admission] "insane," but access to guns has a fuck-ton to do with yet another mass shooting.

Just the idea that with so many mental health issues related to military service that Trump’s suggestion of putting them on duty on security/guard duty has a good chance of backfiring...what is the percentage who have to be treated for psychological issues after returning?  10%?  15%?

Edited November 11, 2018 by caulfield12

[Two-Gun Pete]

16 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Just the idea that with so many mental health issues related to military service that Trump’s suggestion of putting them on duty on security/guard duty has a good chance of backfiring...what is the percentage who have to be treated for psychological issues after returning?  15%?  20%?

I don't know. But I don't think other posters should have to do your research, when it was you that lumped all ex Marines together, in all honesty.

 

If you're going to make such a statement, and forward such an argument that lumps all Ex Marines together, then support your view with a link. Otherwise, it was kind of a dick statement on your part. [Disclosure: I'm attacking your post, not you.]

Why not point out that the overwhelming majority of mass shooters are white males, and then lump all white males together, instead? [If you did, it would be a more accurate statement, although no less dickish.]

 

Signed,

One of many Ex Marines who, together with many other vets of other services, provided you with a blanket of freedom.

Edited November 11, 2018 by Two-Gun Pete

[greg775]

4 hours ago, Two-Gun Pete said:

I don't know. But I don't think other posters should have to do your research, when it was you that lumped all ex Marines together, in all honesty.

 

If you're going to make such a statement, and forward such an argument that lumps all Ex Marines together, then support your view with a link. Otherwise, it was kind of a dick statement on your part. [Disclosure: I'm attacking your post, not you.]

Why not point out that the overwhelming majority of mass shooters are white males, and then lump all white males together, instead? [If you did, it would be a more accurate statement, although no less dickish.]

 

Signed,

One of many Ex Marines who, together with many other vets of other services, provided you with a blanket of freedom.

Thanks for your service Two Gun Pete. How are you doing since leaving active duty? Do you have a good job, etc? Thanx again Pete! Soxtalk respects your service!

[caulfield12]

I shouldn’t have specified Marines and just used the term “service members.”  

 

Rates of probable PTSD among current and former serving military personnel reached six percent in 2014/16, up from four percent in 2004/2006, the King's College London study said.

The results of a major cohort study, published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, showed frontline soldiers were most affected, but so too were those who have since left the military.

Some 17 percent of ex-military personnel who had combat roles in Iraq or Afghanistan reported symptoms suggesting probable PTSD, compared to six percent of those who were deployed in support roles, such as logistics.

The overall rate of probable PTSD for veterans of the Iraq and Afghan wars was nine percent, compared to five percent of those who did not deploy to those conflicts.

Meanwhile the rate of probable PTSD among currently serving personnel was five percent, close to the rate among the general population.

"For the first time we have identified that the risk of PTSD for veterans deployed in conflicts was substantially higher than the risk for those still serving," said Dr Sharon Stevelink from King's Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN).

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/british-troops-suffer-higher-rates-ptsd-study-093316675.html

Edited November 11, 2018 by caulfield12

[lostfan]

4 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

I shouldn’t have specified Marines and just used the term “service members.”  

 

Rates of probable PTSD among current and former serving military personnel reached six percent in 2014/16, up from four percent in 2004/2006, the King's College London study said.

The results of a major cohort study, published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, showed frontline soldiers were most affected, but so too were those who have since left the military.

Some 17 percent of ex-military personnel who had combat roles in Iraq or Afghanistan reported symptoms suggesting probable PTSD, compared to six percent of those who were deployed in support roles, such as logistics.

The overall rate of probable PTSD for veterans of the Iraq and Afghan wars was nine percent, compared to five percent of those who did not deploy to those conflicts.

Meanwhile the rate of probable PTSD among currently serving personnel was five percent, close to the rate among the general population.

"For the first time we have identified that the risk of PTSD for veterans deployed in conflicts was substantially higher than the risk for those still serving," said Dr Sharon Stevelink from King's Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience (IoPPN).

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/british-troops-suffer-higher-rates-ptsd-study-093316675.html

This isn't how PTSD works. People with PTSD don't (usually) go flipping out and murdering people, If anything they're more of a risk to self-harm (just like most people with mental illnesses). They'll have feelings of withdrawal, flashbacks, and so on, maybe try to deal with those feelings by numbing them with drugs and/or alcohol.

This is what I meant when I said that's an actively harmful stereotype. Not to make things about me, but for example, just like this guy I used a machine gun in combat and had problems re-adjusting to normal life when I came back and at no point was I ever a danger to anyone. That's not the type of help I needed and that would've just made my issues worse.

[southsider2k5]

On 11/10/2018 at 11:10 AM, lostfan said:

Really tired of people bringing up "PTSD" when a person who commits acts of violence is found to be a veteran. That's an actively harmful stereotype, not just to veterans but people suffering from PTSD (veterans and non-veterans).

The amazing thing is the amount of people who believe this is a pretty normal thing, and want to arm "veterans" and put them into the schools as protectors, instead of something productive like overhauling the VA.

[Soxbadger]

On 11/11/2018 at 5:00 AM, lostfan said:

This isn't how PTSD works. People with PTSD don't (usually) go flipping out and murdering people, If anything they're more of a risk to self-harm (just like most people with mental illnesses). They'll have feelings of withdrawal, flashbacks, and so on, maybe try to deal with those feelings by numbing them with drugs and/or alcohol.

This is what I meant when I said that's an actively harmful stereotype. Not to make things about me, but for example, just like this guy I used a machine gun in combat and had problems re-adjusting to normal life when I came back and at no point was I ever a danger to anyone. That's not the type of help I needed and that would've just made my issues worse.

I appreciate your perspective.

I think sometimes people use PTSD as a way to try and reconcile how someone who we are all taught to respect and want to emulate can do something so horrible. Nobody wants to go out there and say  "This guy was always a killer" or a "monster" because then we have to admit to ourselves that not all people in service are good/honorable people. So I think that people try and make the excuse that its not the guys fault, its the PTSD that made him do it. 

The unintended consequence is what you have been discussing in this thread, but its not really something that ever gets discussed. 

[StrangeSox]

A "good guy with a gun," an armed security guard at a Chicago area bar, stopped a shooter. When police arrived on the scene, they shot and killed the security guard. I don't know that "armed security guard at every bar, school, mall, movie theater, church, synagogue, and literally every public place" is the way to go

 

https://wgntv.com/2018/11/11/multiple-wounded-in-robbins-bar-shooting-police-say/

[caulfield12]

5 hours ago, StrangeSox said:

A "good guy with a gun," an armed security guard at a Chicago area bar, stopped a shooter. When police arrived on the scene, they shot and killed the security guard. I don't know that "armed security guard at every bar, school, mall, movie theater, church, synagogue, and literally every public place" is the way to go

 

https://wgntv.com/2018/11/11/multiple-wounded-in-robbins-bar-shooting-police-say/

If you make them much more easily identifiable to the police...they’re going to be even more appealing targets for shooters.

[brett05]

The fact is guns save more lives than they cost per the CDC it's estimated to be 500K to 3 Million per year saved vs the non suicidal deaths of roughly 13 K by guns.

[Balta1701]

12 minutes ago, brett05 said:

The fact is guns save more lives than they cost per the CDC it's estimated to be 500K to 3 Million per year saved vs the non suicidal deaths of roughly 13 K by guns.

Those estimates run into the same problem of people overestimating things, the numbers that you give are similar to the fraction of Americans who say they were abducted by aliens. The Rand corp did a summary of the available  data on this a few years ago, but because the government is blocked from collecting this data by the gun industry, there is never good data on it, and a reasonable person would probably note that my side would be happy to collect more data and the other side is not.

Quote

Conclusions

Estimates for the prevalence of DGU (Defensive Gun Use) span wide ranges and include high-end estimates—for instance, 2.5 million DGUs per year—that are not plausible given other information that is more trustworthy, such as the total number of U.S. residents who are injured or killed by guns each year. At the other extreme, the NCVS estimate of 116,000 DGU incidents per year almost certainly underestimates the true number. There have been few substantive advances in measuring prevalence counts or rates since the NRC (2004) report. 

 

[pettie4sox]

3 hours ago, brett05 said:

The fact is guns save more lives than they cost per the CDC it's estimated to be 500K to 3 Million per year saved vs the non suicidal deaths of roughly 13 K by guns.

Here's the thing, what's to assume none of the patrons were armed in that case?  I don't think the news would say if a victim was armed outside the police officer who died trying to intervene.

[brett05]

21 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

Those estimates run into the same problem of people overestimating things, the numbers that you give are similar to the fraction of Americans who say they were abducted by aliens. The Rand corp did a summary of the available  data on this a few years ago, but because the government is blocked from collecting this data by the gun industry, there is never good data on it, and a reasonable person would probably note that my side would be happy to collect more data and the other side is not.

 

I agree, but again if you take the low number more lives are saved than lost by a multitude margin.

[Balta1701]

14 minutes ago, brett05 said:

I agree, but again if you take the low number more lives are saved than lost by a multitude margin.

No that's not how it works because most defensive gun uses would not be incidents that result in fatalities even in that case. If you somehow have the penis engorging fantasy come true where you are the one who successfully pulls a gun on a person who is attempting to rob you, that would count as a defensive gun use, but most robberies do not end in fatalities. If you start a fight, the person punches you, and you pull a gun, that could still count as a defensive gun use. No one would have died and you started the fight, but you get to count that. 

[NorthSideSox72]

14 minutes ago, brett05 said:

I agree, but again if you take the low number more lives are saved than lost by a multitude margin.

This is untrue because it is non-provable. You are assuming that all incidents involving a gun used in self defense saved a life. Clearly that won't be true - it will be some portion of it. And the part that is non-provable is that there is no way to know which ones. 80%? 10%? 50%? One would literally have to study each incident in detail, and even then still make assumptions. It isn't possible.

The only thing we can say with confidence is that it is a fraction of what you re using here as a measure, that "DGU".

 

[brett05]

On 11/14/2018 at 8:38 AM, NorthSideSox72 said:

This is untrue because it is non-provable. You are assuming that all incidents involving a gun used in self defense saved a life. Clearly that won't be true - it will be some portion of it. And the part that is non-provable is that there is no way to know which ones. 80%? 10%? 50%? One would literally have to study each incident in detail, and even then still make assumptions. It isn't possible.

The only thing we can say with confidence is that it is a fraction of what you re using here as a measure, that "DGU".

 

I never said provable.

I used a stat from the government, a supposedly unbiased source.

The only thing we can say with confidence is that there are lives saved, how many is debatable, it could be thousands it could be tens of millions

[LittleHurt05]

On 11/13/2018 at 10:27 AM, brett05 said:

The fact is guns save more lives than they cost per the CDC it's estimated to be 500K to 3 Million per year saved vs the non suicidal deaths of roughly 13 K by guns.

Why do you only include non suicidal deaths?  I have to imagine many of those suicides would not have happened if a gun was not so easily accessible.  

[Dick Allen]

On 11/13/2018 at 10:27 AM, brett05 said:

The fact is guns save more lives than they cost per the CDC it's estimated to be 500K to 3 Million per year saved vs the non suicidal deaths of roughly 13 K by guns.

So are you saying if guns were never invented, many more would be murdered? 

 

That is probably about as silly as it gets.