Tragedy as two reporters are gunned down.

[Mike DC]

Wishful thinking but that is the problem.

A hundred years ago when some noteworthy person was shot or shot somebody it was national news (albeit not so swiftly circulated) but now even a small time shooting makes the national news instantly. Example, a shooting yesterday in a local college parking lot made CNN within hours. Why? It was near a school.

"If it bleeds, it leads" is an age-old saying in the news business.  Anything that inspires anger or fear gets priority.  


I think the constant shooting coverage has more to do with the 24/7 news cycle than anything else.  There are never enough things to talk now.  Anything remotely negative is fish-in-a-barrel viewership.


That, and sometimes things just happen in peaks & valleys.  We're getting a lot of shootings & coverage lately.  But have we had any sex scandals lately?  Domestic terrorism?  Corporate greed outrages?  Maybe one of those issues will dominate things next year.  
             

[Davtona]

I've never seen anybody who suffers this kind of loss call for more armament on the streets.

Like everything else, it boils down to GREED.

 

[polywideblock]

its really no different to the parents of  teens killed by drunk driver or OD ing on drugs, they then make it their mission in what's left of their lives to try to make DUI  laws tougher or campaigns against drugs for the rest of their lives. it what they "have to do "  seen it how many times now   

[John_Kunkel]

That's how Kalifornia got its mandatory motorcycle helmet law. The grieving mother of a young biker (who rode like there was no tomorrow) was convinced that a helmet would have saved her kid's life and became a monomaniac. Just like gun control, she focused on an item instead of the behavior that brought about a tragedy.

[el dub]

I wonder how many other young men had their lives saved by a helmet. I wonder how many lives have been saved by seat belts.
   Your guns are safe. Its the media that causes grief.  .
Do you think someone is going to change the second amendment?

[Mike DC]

 

Do you think someone is going to change the second amendment?

Do you think the 2nd amendment needs to be changed before we could lose gun rights?


The govt has been ignoring & disobeying the Constitution for decades.  They could start yanking more gun rights any time they want.  They don't even need a law on paper making it official.  Not anymore.  

We could take the case to the Supreme Court.  But that doesn't mean the SC will side with the Constitution.  In fact they might just ignore the case entirely (refuse to hear it) because they can.  

[el dub]

Yes, I do think that. And I don't think they will change the second amendment. And if they work around that their hands will be full trying to get everyones guns. Are you going to give up your guns? Me neither. I am old enough to not give a crap about the govt. They can change things around but I'm not to worried about that. I have been hearing this gun stuff for the last 30 years. I'm waiting for Trump anyway. He wont mess with the guns. All the more reason to vote for the right party.  

[Mike DC]

  
Guns aren't my big soapbox issue either.  But I worry that things are getting worse over time. 

IMO it's not remotely practical for anyone to attempt to disarm the US public on the whole.  And IMO the personal firearms we are allowed to own don't represent much political power anyway.  (We are not going to overthrow the Federal govt with a bunch of rifles & pistols.  Warfare has changed since the 1700s.)



But I do think we're facing a slippery-slope disarming over time.  The govt won't literally make guns illegal but they could make gun ownership / possession into a severe PITA & risk.  

Hypotheticals:

Gun ownership putting people on all the NSA bad-guy watch lists.  Gun ownership becoming a serious strike against a parent in a child custody hearing.  Gun possession becoming legal grounds to throw the book at someone without much probable cause.  Arresting cops being allowed to pre-emptively open fire at known gun owners before any threat is observed.  Etc.  

There are a lot of ways to make life miserable for gun owners without outright bans.  

[el dub]

 



But I do think we're facing a slippery-slope disarming over time.  The govt won't literally make guns illegal but they could make gun ownership / possession into a severe PITA & risk.  

   That is most likely true. Also hypothetically, if your seeing a shrink and getting meds from them you might be in trouble in the future.  Don't tell your shrink you have guns. It is not privileged info. He will give you up.

[John_Kunkel]

I wonder how many other young men had their lives saved by a helmet. I wonder how many lives have been saved by seat belts.

You miss the point, it's about freedom of choice or the current lack of. Monomaniacs shouldn't be driving the legislative process.

[el dub]

I wonder how many other young men had their lives saved by a helmet. I wonder how many lives have been saved by seat belts.

You miss the point, it's about freedom of choice or the current lack of. Monomaniacs shouldn't be driving the legislative process.

I get the point. But what would your solution be? 

[ws23rt]

Is it not true that a helmet law is intended for the greater good?----That greater good is presumed to be lower cost to those that don't even ride motorcycles.   Where did that cost savings come from?

For those that think it's all about our collective passion for the well being of one another I say step back a bit and add things up. Their is what we want the world to be and what the world is.

When the cost of health care becomes a social/government  issue everything we do with regard to our own personal wellbeing becomes an obligation to everyone else just by the nature of it.

If I go onto my roof to clean the moss and don't provide for myself the proper fall restraint, I could fall and incur substantial medical cost to all that pay for social medical care.

The field of restrictions for what we are allowed to do are without limit and the justification will be for the greater cost benefit of all.

I vote for the "Darwin" idea of letting things settle down.-----The real problem with stupid people is that they reproduce to frequently before their demise. -----Is this not the real social issue that needs to be addressed?

[polywideblock]

   just remove ALL warning label's for 12 months and let nature take its course 

[Mike DC]

Psychopaths do a lot more damage per capita than morons.

[el dub]

I vote for the "Darwin" idea of letting things settle down.-----The real problem with stupid people is that they reproduce to frequently before their demise. -----Is this not the real social issue that needs to be addressed?

   The real problem is education or lack thereof. The SAT's out for 2015 is the lowest in ten years. The teachers may be sub par or maybe its the schools curriculum. Or maybe its all the electronic brains that have come out in the last 10 years. Maybe throw out your tv if you have a kid over 6 years old.

[John_Kunkel]

Is it not true that a helmet law is intended for the greater good?----That greater good is presumed to be lower cost to those that don't even ride motorcycles.   Where did that cost savings come from?

I've heard that argument before...the classic scenario is one in which an uninsured un-helmeted biker crashes and the public-at-large has to pay for his hospital care. I ain't buyin' it; look at the number of routine activities that involve a certain amount of risk. Around here there's been a rash of drownings in the Sacramento River but any suggestion that swimmers be required to wear life jackets meets stiff resistance. Bikers are scum, who cares if they object but yuppie swimmers should have the freedom of choice.

It's not generally known but over half of all reported traumatic brain injuries are the result of car accidents. How do you think drivers would react if there was a suggestion to make helmet use in cars mandatory? After all, it's for the greater good.

[el dub]

Is it not true that a helmet law is intended for the greater good?----That greater good is presumed to be lower cost to those that don't even ride motorcycles.   Where did that cost savings come from?

I've heard that argument before...the classic scenario is one in which an uninsured un-helmeted biker crashes and the public-at-large has to pay for his hospital care. I ain't buyin' it; look at the number of routine activities that involve a certain amount of risk. Around here there's been a rash of drownings in the Sacramento River but any suggestion that swimmers be required to wear life jackets meets stiff resistance. Bikers are scum, who cares if they object but yuppie swimmers should have the freedom of choice.

It's not generally known but over half of all reported traumatic brain injuries are the result of car accidents. How do you think drivers would react if there was a suggestion to make helmet use in cars mandatory? After all, it's for the greater good.

What is your solution?  You want to place blame, blame insurance companies. Who are getting scammed on a regular basis. Good luck with that.

[Mike DC]

  

Insurance companies also scam their customers on a regular basis.  

[John_Kunkel]

What is your solution?

My solution? Accept the fact that s**t is gonna happen and quit playing the blame game.

[el dub]

There's too much common sense in that statement.   Out of a total of 435 U.S. Representatives and 100 Senators (535 total in Congress), lawyers comprise the biggest voting block of one type, making up 43% of Congress. Sixty percent of the U.S. Senate is lawyers.
37.2% of the House of Representatives are lawyers.
    Just a stat, on lawyers, not political. Guess who makes the laws. I think they just have to keep on coming up with new laws, kinda like a dog who pisses on the tires.

[ws23rt]

Law makers do what they do.  We don't hire law repealers.

Breaking frivolous laws is what we all do frequently.  Whether it's because we don't know about a particular law or the law is so stupid that it calls for a challenge. (What I have in mind here are laws that are intended to save us from ourselves).

If laws had a life span and came up for reevaluation.? --  Is suicide still against the law?  Are some prosecuted for an attempt? What is the max. sentence one can get for failing to be successful at suicide? -----A mandatory sentence to life ---That'll  get them law breakin bastards.

[polywideblock]

reminds me of my fathers favourite saying " rules are for fools and made to be broken "   

[cavemanno1]

As someone who just had an accident with a motorcycle two weeks ago,i have to say that the helmet probably saved my life!I have collided with a truck and i was damn lucky to walk away.However if the helmet wasn't mandatory i would still wear it since it's common sense plus those bugs flying to your face at 70mph hurt a lot!

Should it be a freedom of choice?Don't think so,it saved a lot of people's life.But giving up your rights for your weapons is an other matter!
Imagine if everyone handed in their weapons expect the criminals and they decide to rob you in your home.You would have no way to protect your family and yourself!Those guns make criminals think twice about robbing you and they still do it!
A good example i have from a South African friend who works with me.He told me his government took all the guns away from white people and now there are more murder and crime being commit against white people then ever!They have no way of protecting themself and horrific things happen to them!

Accident happens but if common sense is applied i can not see how they could happen frequently!Sure don't give a 10 year old a gun or play with it while showing off or drunk!

[John_Kunkel]

Should it be a freedom of choice? Don't think so, it saved a lot of people's life. But giving up your rights for your weapons is an other matter.

Your logic is twisted, if a helmet saves lives, confiscating all guns will save lots more lives. Freedom of choice should extend to both.

BTW, I've been down hard on three occasions without a helmet and my head is still intact so my anecdotal experience is no more/less valid than those who think a helmet saved them from serious injury.

[skip68]

Helmets are easy to control.   Even the bad bikers wear helmets because it's obvious.   The bad guys that have the guns isn't obvious and the guns are their tools for protection and crime.   Only law abiding citizens will willingly give up their guns and I'd imagine the majority of the good gun owners won't give them up.  I know I won't.