NFR: No Solution, just dead kids...

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Go Fish, Dec 14, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Craig, the article made my point and confirms my experience with the problem we have in this country with the mentally ill. They can ban the sale of assault rifles and after this, probably will, but the root cause will remain.

    As far as the guns go, I'm a gun owner and always will be. However, I have no desire to own a military style assault rifle and can't imagine I'd ever need one for home protection. Problem is, there are now so many of the weapons available in our society, I'm not sure how you can keep them out of the hands of criminals and the insane even if they are no longer legally sold.

    So, I'm back to making sure there are funds available for law enforcement and the mental health profession available so keep some folks off the streets. It doesn't matter if an insane shooter kills one or twenty, the fact that they are out on the streets and can kill anyone must be corrected.
    Bill Aubrey likes this.
  2. Roper -- you obliterated the target center. One minor, very recent detail you failed to mention however, which is particulaly close to home, is the hypocrisy of WA state's general funds being used for anti-smoking ads, but now finding it perfectly fine to leaglize maryjane...perhaps wadingboot has a graph that can rationalize this as well :)
  3. Way off the mark on this one Jerry. I know a couple of co-workers who are self proclaimned, raging liberals, with whom I have gone target shooting. We even have heated political debate while firing live ammo and I never once felt threatened about them turning on me... wow, how lucky was that! As much as we disagree on just about everything else, these two will surely defend 2nd ammendment rights.

    Besides, if we elimnate the political debate on guns, it will just be replaced with hatchery vs. native, the Ford vs. Chevy, or the Sage vs. Loomis... we can't help ourselves... we're mere mortal men (and women).
    slider292 likes this.
  4. So much has changed over the last 40 years....Society has changed for the worse. To much lack of respect for others or authority.............We have become an amoral society.....It's time to become a moral society again, but my fear is we have moved past that option. We have way to many enablers now and very little accountability. Sad.
    Mike T likes this.
  5. The thing that has changed is how and what the media reports. Violent crime has steadily fallen the past few decades, but the news media wouldn't want us to believe that.
  6. Everything has changed, including the things you cite. I do not think it would be difficult to equate the decline(s) in western culture with those of ancient Rome. We can look to their history to see how ours might look. Now THAT'S sad.
  7. Freestoneangler,

    I don't have a graph on that, but I agree with you and Roper on the public health implications of things like drinking and smoking (weed or otherwise). We probably share many common ideas on gun issues also. I probably have come off as sounding like I want a nanny state here, but that's not the case. I am more concerned about public health than moralizing. These acts of domestic terrorism are burdens to our public health. Public health costs are ones that tax all of us. Addressing these issues lowers costs and I am all in favor of that...

    With tobacco linked to lung cancer, heart disease, stroke risk and premature death, limitations and taxes on cigarettes are entirely appropriate because you and I and everyone else (that pays tax) already pays for smoking associated disease burdens. Similarly for alcohol, all of us pay for the damages done by alcohol fueled accidents or chronic alcoholism, obviously the closer you are to the alcohol effects the more you pay. If you're cool with the right and freedom to bear any kinds of arms, the notion that being free to smoke weed is somehow more threatening is a little weird...

    I am 99% certain we (collectively) will be paying some price on weed use too, not just taxing at point of sale, but my concern lies with disproportionate and long term effects on ambition and memory. I.e. are we accelerating dementing processes that occur over 20-30 years that we have yet to understand well. Put it in another way 50% of us will be demented at age 85. Lower that age if you have type II diabetes and cholesterol issues. I would hate to see weed similarly lower the age of dementia onset and limit people's potential. Cohort studies are showing this is a concern. If you wonder about health care costs, maintaining folks with dementia who otherwise have healthy hearts and lungs is already and will continue to be a major, major psychologic and financial burden.

    Having said that I would argue that cannabis will be a very useful drug to study in controlled doses on patients with a variety of neurologic and psychiatric disorders like epilepsy, anxiety, chronic pain, anger issues and so on. We haven't been able to do this in the USA because of federal restrictions. Still can't as far as I can see. I for one would love to see a cannabis patch used for chronic pain rather than street value prescription sedatives like oxycontin, oxycodone, percocet, fentanyl and methadone. Maybe cannabis patches on guys like Adam Lanza could have helped limit impulsivity and anger...

    (You could take that curve I put up in response to societal decline and theorize that the drop in violence also parallels the rise in the use of weed- at least in this country. You could also argue the drop in violence parallels the maturation of children born post Roe V Wade rulings, and you could also argue that the curve itself is full of crap and based on data that has peaks and troughs despite a bold line-of-best-fit.)

    Anyway I don't see this as an adversarial discussion so much as what do we do about this problem of domestic terrorists with rapidly firing guns in their possession and an intent to kill innocents? I know we're on the same page there, it is a "Houston...we have a problem"...moment. And it merits constructive thought from all sides. We are in the same boat!
    dfl and mr. bad example like this.
  8. Things have changed, but it's not all bad in my opinion. We accept types of people now that were second class citizens 40yrs ago. People are as generous and altruistic as ever. Sure, could get in to a political debate about how things happen in our govt, but that's not where this thread needs to go.

    Morality can be a very subjective thing, as can be seen in our recent discussion on Washington states latest legislations. But I'm sure we an all agree on the golden rule at the very least.
    Cruik and Jeff Sawyer like this.
  9. Thats interesting. Here's a philosophical question, though..... ( not that this thread needs any more fuel...) if morality is subjective, then how is right and wrong even measured?
    My point is simply that BECAUSE morality is viewed as subjective, then people being what they are (apparently), the 'standard' for that morality is in a state of decline in our society at this point in time. As was Rome's in their time.
    Grayone likes this.
  10. True, his mom owned the guns and he just stole them. But the police and medical examiner were very clear in a press conference that every shot fired came from a Bushmaster .223 semi-auto rifle, and the shooter used rounds designed to fragment inside bodies. Here is a news account that states exactly what I heard officials state last night:

    So my question still stands:

    The police report from CT says the entire shooting took place in just 2 minutes, from 9:36-9:38 AM that morning. 26 people murdered in 2 minutes. Anyone doubt that the death toll would have been lower had the weapon been a knife, bomb, or anything other than a semi-auto assault rifle?

    That same day in China, a man attacked an elementary school class with a knife, injuring 20 but killing none. I'll bet there would have been many deaths if that attacker had a Bushmaster like the guy in CT.

    I have an academic question: How did we as a nation arrive at the collective wisdom that it's a good idea to make semi-auto assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and ammo designed to explode inside bodies broadly available? Again, this is an academic question because the genie is out of the bottle on this score, and I'm pretty sure we'll need to live with the situation as-is. I just want to know how we got to this point. What was the rationale?
    Bill Aubrey and dfl like this.
  11. Simple, it's based on the premise that sane, reasonable people have both the moral compass and rational mind to use guns responsibly....any idea how much carnage an 8000# truck at high speed, with a demented idiot behind the wheel, can do?
  12. Perhaps we could discuss it if you gave examples.
  13. So why not make 50 caliber machine guns legal too? Or an M1 Abrams tank? Or an F/A-18 jet? After all, those could also be fun and safe toys in the hands of responsible owners.

    And of course we should also solve for demented truck drivers ( they also kill several tens of thousands of people per year?), reducing car accidents, and lots of other things that could be improved and have been mentioned in this thread. Let's do it. But solving for those other issues does not preclude also thinking about solving for the gun death problem we clearly also have.

    So focusing back again on this gun death problem we seem to have, yes, improving mental health care in the US is an urgent need. But again, solving that does not preclude also seeking answers to the availability of extraordinarily efficient means of committing mass murder. It's not "or", it's "and". Let's multi-task on this.
    dfl likes this.
  14. It's not the gun, tank, truck, knife, or 5's the person choosing to use it irresponsibly that results in the consequences.
  15. Lugan, of course it is an AND. I'm afraid people will focus on the gun issue and ignore the root cause because that may mean paying more taxes. It costs nothing to stop the sale of firearms but people better start realizing they must pay taxes to fund jails and mental health facilities so we don't have criminals released from jail because there is no funding and we don't have the dangerously insane released from hospitals because people don't want their taxes raised.

    Go ahead, stop the sale of assault riffles... but criminals and the dangerously insane will still be walking the streets because they were released back into the population due to lack of funding. And they will find a way to commit crime and kill people assault rifle or not.
    dfl, Jim Wallace and Lugan like this.
  16. So what is a responsible use for a semi-automatic riffle with fragmenting bullets?
    Jim Wallace likes this.
  17. Once again, you've dodged a direct answer to my question. I'll take that as "I don't have a good answer".

    I agree that triggers don't pull themselves, and ultimately the crazy f--k pulling the trigger is responsible. And yeah, do we ever have some crazy mo-fos in the US. But I don't see any data that says were 10x more crazy than the UK, Japan or other countries with murder rates 10x lower than ours (or better). But making such efficient weapons so easily available to crazy people seems insane. The data on this around the world is pretty clear: and

    Again, I'm just asking how we got here, because where we are as a nation is uniquely bad compared with the rest of the civilized world.

    As for me, I'm pragmatic on this issue and had already planned to buy a gun this winter well before this Connecticut horror. See you on the shooting range (probably Wade's in Bellevue).
    dfl likes this.
  18. I agree except a little bit of that part where you think they'll find ways to kill w/o assault rifles. There would of course still be crime and murder. I'm just sure that the scale would be smaller. That crazy f--k in CT unloaded hundreds of rounds in two minutes and killed 26 people in that short time. What other weapon is SIMULTANEOUSLY 1. relatively affordable, 2. readily purchased, 3. easy to operate effectively, and 4. can kill that many people that quickly? Name an alternative that fits all four criteria.

    The thing I worry about is that even if we outlaw such weapons, there are so many in circulation today that there will be a half a century of supply available to bad guys and crazy people. So seriously, my question is academic. I just want to know how we got here. I truly don't see a way to unravel the mess such that we don't have mass gun murders every month.
  19. Okay, ban assault rifles, fine by me. But are you ready to start paying more taxes to keep criminals and the dangerously insane out of the population? Even if a nut case kills one person, that is a tragedy for the loved ones. It only matters if someone can manage to kill a lot of people? The idea is to accept the release of the killers and criminals because they can only kill a few folks at a time if they have no access to an assault riffle?

    And Ron, you are absolutely correct. WHY did this women need a collection of automatic weapons unless she too was suffering from a mental illness? Perhaps that is why the husband got the hell out of there. Single women normally do not collect a wide range of automatic, military style weapons. What was her frame of mind?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page