San Bernadine Shooting

[Bouncer]

Fb stop pushing off your beliefs onto ripper so that if someone disagrees you don't have to be in conflict with them. Stand up for what you believe in and post the fucken pic because its what you like and what you believe in! Tired of this pussy footing shit. Us gun owners gotta stick together god damn it!

[FitnessBrat]

so.much.ripper :)

[Scrumhalf]

Guys, this is a not an all or nothing issue. You are not going to be able to prevent EVERY gun incident, not matter how many laws you have. But the question is - what is the happy medium? What is that middle point where *some* or hopefully *the majority* of gun violence is minimized? Could it be done with minimum impediment to the lawful owners of guns? That is the question that we need to have an honest debate about. And that is the question that we seem to constantly be ducking by stating things like "well, laws don't work because look, it didn't work in this instance despite all the laws being there."

In engineering and statistical sampling, there is this concept called alpha risk and beta risk. Alpha risk is where you, for example, decide to reject a part as defective when it really isn't. Beta risk, on the other hand, is where you declare a part to be fine when it really isn't. Alpha and beta risks are connected - the higher the alpha risk, the lower the beta risk and vice versa. As a part manufacturer, you have decide how much alpha risk and how much beta risk you want to tolerate. Obviously, if you are interested in outgoing quality, you will minimize your beta risk even though this means that you may be throwing away some parts that are really good.

Consider the parallel to guns and gun laws. Alpha risk is where you deny a gun to someone who is on the borderline but are really fine and law abiding. Beta risk is where you allow someone to have a gun who really shouldn't. Ideally, your laws are such that you can perfectly identify and classify every gun buyer into law abiding and having criminal intent, but real life is not so clean cut. So as a society, we need to make some decisions. We need to figure out where to place that threshold - do we make laws a little more stringent so that we minimize the chance that the bad guys get guns, at the expense of denying some people guns (or types of guns or whatever), or do we make the laws laxer so that nobody is inconvenienced in any way, at the risk of having more bad guys get access to guns.

Note that there is no such thing as zero risk. In manufacturing, if you sample, you will ALWAYS run the risk of some bad part slipping through the cracks. That's why you have customer returns. The goal is to minimize this, at the risk of throwing away more good parts (and profits). It's the same for this situation. We need to decide as a society if we can identify that happy medium where we tolerate some inconvenience, maybe more checks, whatever, to reduce the beta risk of people who should not be getting guns actually getting them. Again, beta risk will never be zero, so you will always have some people who slip through the cracks. But I think we can do better than what we are doing today, which is to say that we want to make the alpha risk zero, regardless of how high we make the beta risk.

I'm not saying I have the answer of where the needle needs to be set on this, but we at least need to analytically examine the problem. This is a problem that can be solved to a reasonable level of satisfaction, at least better than where we are today. We are just unwilling to do so.

[Bouncer]

I love that none of the people for gun control will address the drug control comparison. Not very a very convenient truth is it guys? ;)

[lipripper]

So your logic is fuck it, let's all have guns?


In fact, the French incident was due to the failures of chengen agreement and slack border control

Us having guns is what kicked your ass in the very start of our country. :thumb:

Then we saved your ass in a couple world wars because you couldn't defend your selves. Ever wonder why noone else has tried to invade us ?:thumb:

[chuckz28]

For someone who is all about government conspiracy this and that why would you want the government to take control of citizens means to protect themselves?

[chuckz28]

If motive matters then maybe religion should be banned because religion has killed more people than guns. My logic is taking guns away won't work and each incident will have much larger numbers of victims! Until you destroy every gun on the planet and the means to make new ones it will keep happening. With no guns on the planet those same crazy people will use home made bombs and do even worse damage. Pressure cookers, fertilizer etc.

[Mr I]

France has no easy access to firearms yet it still happened and their loss of life was in the hundreds.

So your logic is fuck it, let's all have guns?


In fact, the French incident was due to the failures of chengen agreement and slack border control

[chuckz28]

France has no easy access to firearms yet it still happened and their loss of life was in the hundreds.

[Mr I]

Home grown terrorist via Islam plus easy access to firearms - congratulations America, you are officially the dumbest liability of a country on the planet


Hold on to that 2nd amendment while your children are murdered you arrogant thick cunts

[chuckz28]

So the FBI admitted today that it is being investigated as a terrorism incident. The Woman declared her allegiance to ISIS hours before the attack.

[lipripper]

You have to do both. You have to get people help that need it. You also have to make sure they don't have the ability to hurt themselves or others.

Agreed, but why do 95% of all people have to give up their rights for the 5% that are fucked up?( just random numbers) I think a solution could be found that don't interfere with those honest peoples rights. Why are we against KILLING people who commit violent crimes? Why give them another chance? why let them out to do this again? See scrum..this is my problem? people who follow the law are expected to give up and change their lives because of a few who don't want to play nice? sorry I cant go along with it.

Give me a reasonable way to fix this without taking anyones leagle right away and Im all for it bro... but Im not for sacrificing my ways of living for those evil people.. If you are sir... more power to you.

[Scrumhalf]

You have to do both. You have to get people help that need it. You also have to make sure they don't have the ability to hurt themselves or others.

[lipripper]

So then we want to change gun laws in this country on law abiding citizens because of sick fucks? Why not change the mental health system for screening and pour money into it to help them? Wouldn't that be more effective?

[lipripper]

Most of the guys who commit mass shootings are either shot by the cops or they shoot themselves. I doubt that the death penalty deterrent will have much of an effect on someone with mental health issues. Roseburg, Oregon, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech... all committed by guys with mental problems and all killed themselves.

I'm sorry, thought this was about gun violence.. its just about mass shootings? really?