Subj : Re: Okay, here we go again (but are things different this time?) To : Digital Man From : Gandolf Date : Sun Feb 18 2018 17:21:52 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 > --- þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net .