'Mass shooting' reported at Sutherland Springs church in Texas

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

6 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

 

It's a hybrid straw man-red herring non-starter argument. LOL. 

A lack of ability to understand the logic behind something does not automatically make it a red herring for all.

[smilesammich 10,727]

2 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

you think those dead kids care what they are called?

seriously. the carnage is all that matters in the end. the neighbor who is a medic who went in the church to see if he could help turned right back around, he couldn't deal. who cares if about the slug's weight or the proper use of 'clip'. not important.

[Boiler 46,016]

2 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

seriously. the carnage is all that matters in the end. the neighbor who is a medic who went in the church to see if he could help turned right back around, he couldn't deal. who cares if about the slug's weight or the proper use of 'clip'. not important.

Just shows a level of ignorance on the subject.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, Boiler said:

Just shows a level of ignorance on the subject.

depends on your priorities, really.

[CaliCat 3,957]

7 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

seriously. the carnage is all that matters in the end. the neighbor who is a medic who went in the church to see if he could help turned right back around, he couldn't deal. who cares if about the slug's weight or the proper use of 'clip'. not important.

 

It makes for great diversion though. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

24 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Well, online numbers would argue with you.  90,000 (years ago) is less than 250,000 (now).  Now I grant you, reporting today could be more accurate, but we have no way of knowing, really.

 

My point is that there is an epidemic of medical errors killing us.  As in at least TWENTY to TWENTY FIVE times worse than criminals with guns.  Yet the outrage is towards guns.  

 

   Again you missed the point,  both of those numbers as they pertain to deaths due to medical errors are estimates. One is a more accurate estimate. Twenty years ago they estimated ~90000. Today they estimate ~210000.  Nothing in the estimates suggest more errors are occurring, it suggests that the way it is monitored now gives a more accurate picture.  

 

      Twenty years ago, if someone died in bypass surgery that was it. It was a major risky surgery and it would have been the cause of death. Nobody went back to asses if the outcome could have been different.  Nowadays, they look at why. Everything is documented. Was the patients potassium too low? Did they take too long to get blood? Did the procedure take longer than normal?  Everything that could possibly have affected the outcome is analyzed, and by law, reported. Which leads to a more accurate estimate of the actual number of preventable deaths. 

 

   In short, when the medical community actually accepted the problem and assessed it, the scope of the problem was worse than they thought it was. Perhaps we'll find a similar scenario if we take the same serious look at the number of deaths and injuries attributed to the misuse of firearms. 

 

   

  

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

   In short, when the medical community actually accepted the problem and assessed it, the scope of the problem was worse than they thought it was. Perhaps we'll find a similar scenario if we take the same serious look at the number of deaths and injuries attributed to the misuse of firearms.

 

   

  

I’m sure we would have already, if the numbers were high enough to warrant more serious action.  In the last 50 years, less than 20 per year (averaged, obviously) died in a mass shooting incident.  That’s 1/4 the annual bathtub drownings annually.  Roughly 4 times the number of guns obtained illegally were obtained legally in all those shootings.  

 

There are two common items in all those mass murders: 1) The shooter with intent to kill, and 2) Guns.  Get rid of one, and the other will still kill (albeit not as many at once).  Get rid of the other, and we don’t have a problem at all.

 

So if the majority of all those people killed were shot with legally obtained weapons, how do we go about stopping it from happening in the future?  We already have gun control.  Do we need more?  If so, WHAT more?  If not, what then could reduce the incidents?

In the Texas incident, we don’t yet know if the guns were obtained legally or illegally.  But for certain, the shooter wasn’t legal to possess them.  So who knew he had them?  Family, most likely.  Why did his family allow him keep guns, when that had been forbidden?  Why didn’t they report him?  Or convince him to get rid of the guns?  Did they buy them FOR him (assuming it might be harder for him to have purchased them alone)?  

[CaliCat 3,957]

42 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

A lack of ability to understand the logic behind something does not automatically make it a red herring for all.

 

That's why I pointed it out to you. You're welcome. 

[Boiler 46,016]

6 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

I’m sure we would have already, if the numbers were high enough to warrant more serious action.  In the last 50 years, less than 20 per year (averaged, obviously) died in a mass shooting incident.  That’s 1/4 the annual bathtub drownings annually.  Roughly 4 times the number of guns obtained illegally were obtained legally in all those shootings.  

 

There are two common items in all those mass murders: 1) The shooter with intent to kill, and 2) Guns.  Get rid of one, and the other will still kill (albeit not as many at once).  Get rid of the other, and we don’t have a problem at all.

 

So if the majority of all those people killed were shot with legally obtained weapons, how do we go about stopping it from happening in the future?  We already have gun control.  Do we need more?  If so, WHAT more?  If not, what then could reduce the incidents?

In the Texas incident, we don’t yet know if the guns were obtained legally or illegally.  But for certain, the shooter wasn’t legal to possess them.  So who knew he had them?  Family, most likely.  Why did his family allow him keep guns, when that had been forbidden?  Why didn’t they report him?  Or convince him to get rid of the guns?  Did they buy them FOR him (assuming it might be harder for him to have purchased them alone)?  

Seems that they were legally bought but he should not have been able to do so, a failure of Government.

[Póg mo 1,749]

1 hour ago, jayjayj said:

I recognize we have a mental health problem in America.  I also recognize we have a criminal behavior problem in America.  We do not have a law abiding gun owner problem in America.  

Well yes, if gun owners are law abiding, then yes they are by definition not a problem. The problem with gun owners who cease to be law abiding, or just plain careless. Understand? 

[charmander 692]

15 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

So who knew he had them?  Family, most likely.  Why did his family allow him keep guns, when that had been forbidden?  Why didn’t they report him?  Or convince him to get rid of the guns?

His facebook posting got 28 likes. At least those people knew. Then how many of those also knew he was not supposed to have guns, god knows.

 

Just noticed among the likes there is also an angry face icon, maybe those really knew his past.

Edited November 7, 2017 by charmander

[Póg mo 1,749]

11 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

I’m sure we would have already, if the numbers were high enough to warrant more serious action.  In the last 50 years, less than 20 per year (averaged, obviously) died in a mass shooting incident.  That’s 1/4 the annual bathtub drownings annually.  Roughly 4 times the number of guns obtained illegally were obtained legally in all those shootings.  

 

There are two common items in all those mass murders: 1) The shooter with intent to kill, and 2) Guns.  Get rid of one, and the other will still kill (albeit not as many at once).  Get rid of the other, and we don’t have a problem at all.

 

So if the majority of all those people killed were shot with legally obtained weapons, how do we go about stopping it from happening in the future?  We already have gun control.  Do we need more?  If so, WHAT more?  If not, what then could reduce the incidents?

In the Texas incident, we don’t yet know if the guns were obtained legally or illegally.  But for certain, the shooter wasn’t legal to possess them.  So who knew he had them?  Family, most likely.  Why did his family allow him keep guns, when that had been forbidden?  Why didn’t they report him?  Or convince him to get rid of the guns?  Did they buy them FOR him (assuming it might be harder for him to have purchased them alone)?  

Well, it seems the laws governing gun ownership aren't exactly robust enough to handle situations where individuals decide to sell their guns to unlicensed third parties.  Perhaps a national database of guns and strictly enforcing of laws requiring people who don't report selling or loosing guns within a set period of time. Annual gun checks could be another solution worth considering.

[Ban Hammer 13,508]

1 hour ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

you think those dead kids care what they are called?

you can call them a potato if you'd like, but if you wish to appear informed and thus add weight to your position, it's best to use the proper terms.....

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

2 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    Do you know how many regulations have been changed and are changing in the medical industry because of this? The clear difference, compared to 20 years ago, is that the medical industry is required to document everything, have a plan to asses problem areas, change systematic sources of error, and report issues to various levels of government. Hospitals that can't or won't comply will lose funding and ultimately close. 

 

   The first step in fixing something is recognizing the problem exists.  

All that junk that has nothing to do with patient care is part of the reason  cost are sky rocketing. That and Obama 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 minute ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

All that junk that has nothing to do with patient care is part of the reason  cost are sky rocketing. That and Obama 

 

   Yeah it does improve patient care, but I understand that you don't really get it, just as I wouldn't expect a doctor to tell you the best way to go about selling cars. You are certainly entitled to your opinion though. Healthcare is skyrocketing for many reasons, not the least of which is that people can't say no to 1500 calorie happy meals.