for folks that are pro-guns to consider more strict gun laws? I am pro-gun, hunter, carry, been around guns my entire life. That said - I am for trying SOMETHING different than what we have tried to stop mass shootings.

In Malcom Gladwells book, "Talking to Strangers" he makes the argument for "coupling theory". Which says people do certain things (his example was suicide) because they had the impulse to do so when the circumstances were right. Or some behaviors are coupled, or linked to very specific circumstances and conditions.

He looks at a number of studies that disprove "displacement theory" (which says: if people are going to commit suicide, they'll find any means necessary).

1) Golden Gate Bridge study: suicides dropped dramatically when the method (jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge) was taken away from them.
2) "Sylvia Plath/Britain's Town Gas problem": preferred method of suicide was sticking your head in an oven, and inhaling toxic carbon monoxide. When they switched to natural gas (method was taken away), suicides dropped. It was so convenient to kill yourself in this manner - when the convenience was gone, there were less suicides.

How is this different than the gun conversation? and...why not try? Psychopath's preferred method of mass shootings are guns. Why not start discussing limiting those methods? Of course there are issues with this. Of course there are outliers. Of course there are always workarounds...but coupling theory would argue mass shootings happen under the circumstances that we are allowing...why not change those circumstances?

Mass shootings are such a small portion of the overall murder problem in the U.S. Why not start where the real problem is?

OP, there is much to be done but restrictions on gun ownership is dumb as hell.

I don't think rational people actually believe gun restrictions would stop shootings. There's plenty of agriamente in bad faith though

Put the crazy people away before they have a chance to lash out. Every one of these school shooters had many red flags leading up to the event.

lobopride said:

---

Mass shootings are such a small portion of the overall murder problem in the U.S. Why not start where the real problem is?

---

Unregistered democrats?

Why don't we work on not having such a sick, degenerate society, full of mentally ill nut jobs before we worry about stripping God given rights from model citizens that happen to own guns?

Y'all liberals need to find another way to "start a conversation" about guns. This schtick is getting old.

What does 'shall not be infringed' mean to you?

DargelSkout said:

---

Put the crazy people away before they have a chance to lash out. Every one of these school shooters had many red flags leading up to the event.

---

locking people up before a crime is committed would violate due process. if anything the "red flags" you reference should set off alarms when they try to purchase a firearm. Kind of like what should have happened when the Sutherland springs shooter got his guns.

Rook Threads

This one by, to use a phrase from Rush, a "seminar caller."

This is SO frustrating -

DrEvanzanPHD, TomK, Pookers: read the argument and respond.

I find it compelling that coupling theory has explained some methods of death by suicide. I'm simply curious if it could explain death by mass shooting. That's all.

Lobopride: appreciate the actual response. Of course mass shootings (greater than 4 people die) are less common than generic gun violence/murder. My argument has nothing to do with murdering people with guns; rather looking specifically at mass shootings.

lobopride said:

---

Mass shootings are such a small portion of the overall murder problem in the U.S. Why not start where the real problem is?

---

Maybe if we just locked up the criminals committing most of the crimes, this would take away that opportunity for them to commit more crime. But that wouldn't work for OP's troll post.

Quote:

---

1) Golden Gate Bridge study: suicides dropped dramatically when the method (jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge) was taken away from them.

2) "Sylvia Plath/Britain's Town Gas problem": preferred method of suicide was sticking your head in an oven, and inhaling toxic carbon monoxide. When they switched to natural gas (method was taken away), suicides dropped. It was so convenient to kill yourself in this manner - when the convenience was gone, there were less suicides.

---

Can you elaborate on "suicides dropped dramatically," and "there were less suicides?" I'm genuinely curious to know if the number of suicides (per 100k people for instance) actually dropped...or did the methodology for suicide change to something more convenient and suicides continued in numbers similar to before the changes?

I guess I'm getting at method vs motive...

twenty10Ag said:

---

for folks that are pro-guns to consider more strict gun laws? I am pro-gun, hunter, carry, been around guns my entire life. That said - I am for trying SOMETHING different than what we have tried to stop mass shootings.

In Malcom Gladwells book, "Talking to Strangers" he makes the argument for "coupling theory". Which says people do certain things (his example was suicide) because they had the impulse to do so when the circumstances were right. Or some behaviors are coupled, or linked to very specific circumstances and conditions.

He looks at a number of studies that disprove "displacement theory" (which says: if people are going to commit suicide, they'll find any means necessary).

1) Golden Gate Bridge study: suicides dropped dramatically when the method (jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge) was taken away from them.
2) "Sylvia Plath/Britain's Town Gas problem": preferred method of suicide was sticking your head in an oven, and inhaling toxic carbon monoxide. When they switched to natural gas (method was taken away), suicides dropped. It was so convenient to kill yourself in this manner - when the convenience was gone, there were less suicides.

How is this different than the gun conversation? and...why not try? Psychopath's preferred method of mass shootings are guns. Why not start discussing limiting those methods? Of course there are issues with this. Of course there are outliers. Of course there are always workarounds...but coupling theory would argue mass shootings happen under the circumstances that we are allowing...why not change those circumstances?

---

Nothing will make me compromise my rights so your mommy heart can smile. Go back to clutching your pearls, Nancy.

I have zero interests in giving another inch on the 2A... none.

What is "pro-gun" or "gun guy" supposed to mean, exactly?

I have zero issue with raising requirements to 21 or 25 even. It's the other things I take issue with like bans and taxes etc

Love Gun said:

---

Y'all liberals need to find another way to "start a conversation" about guns. This schtick is getting old.

What does 'shall not be infringed' mean to you?

---

In your opinion does it mean that ALL gun laws are unconstitutional? Because the Heller decision made it clear that reasonable regulations are constitutional. Thinking the last 4 words of the second amendment precludes all gun laws is far too rigid of a view, and it's inconsistent with case law on the subject.

Because there are competing interests and other practical concerns that make removal of guns not an effective option as a broad solution.

There is not a chance in hell you get rid of 20-30 million privately owned semi automatic rifles. Yes, there are at least that many, minimum. They'll be readily had, whether legal or somehow made illegal, for decades to come. There is also the matter of individual firearms being a protected civil right and one that is aggressively defended.

So, the broad solution of gun restrictions is not a practical solution in the United States.

What we can do, however, is better identify psychopathic personalities, and understand that nobody is obligated to sell a firearm to a particular customer not in a federally protected category because of membership in that category.

If someone develops in a way that represents a psychopathic danger to others, it might be good to identify them early such that they may be denied sales, should that seller reasonably decide that sale represents a risk, which is within their right to do as I understand it. This doesn't require the removal of civil rights and property from tens of millions of sane and lawful gun owners.

How many mass shootings wouldn't have happened if an AR-15 wasn't available? If this question cannot be answered with a legit factual supported response, then the gov't shouldn't even start a conversation to restrict ownership of any firearms to law abiding citizens.

Would Salvador Ramos have just given up on shooting up a school without his AR? Or would he have taken a couple pistols and a shotgun to the school instead? What about Lanza? The kid in FL?

See that's the thing with psychos. No one knows what they would have done because they are lunatics. But we do know they are mentally ill and that psychoses comes from somewhere and its not because an AR-15 was available to them. Start there. Focus on the real problem and not the tool they used.

twenty10Ag said:

---

This is SO frustrating -

DrEvanzanPHD, TomK, Pookers: read the argument and respond.

I find it compelling that coupling theory has explained some methods of death by suicide. I'm simply curious if it could explain death by mass shooting. That's all.

Lobopride: appreciate the actual response. Of course mass shootings (greater than 4 people die) are less common than generic gun violence/murder. My argument has nothing to do with murdering people with guns; rather looking specifically at mass shootings.

---

I did respond. You're a troll.

How many restrictions have been placed in the last 30 years, and what good have they done?

And how many posts questioning your motivation are going to get deleted?

twenty10Ag said:

---

for folks that are pro-guns to consider more strict gun laws? I am pro-gun, hunter, carry, been around guns my entire life. That said - I am for trying SOMETHING different than what we have tried to stop mass shootings.

In Malcom Gladwells book, "Talking to Strangers" he makes the argument for "coupling theory". Which says people do certain things (his example was suicide) because they had the impulse to do so when the circumstances were right. Or some behaviors are coupled, or linked to very specific circumstances and conditions.

He looks at a number of studies that disprove "displacement theory" (which says: if people are going to commit suicide, they'll find any means necessary).

1) Golden Gate Bridge study: suicides dropped dramatically when the method (jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge) was taken away from them.
2) "Sylvia Plath/Britain's Town Gas problem": preferred method of suicide was sticking your head in an oven, and inhaling toxic carbon monoxide. When they switched to natural gas (method was taken away), suicides dropped. It was so convenient to kill yourself in this manner - when the convenience was gone, there were less suicides.

How is this different than the gun conversation? and...why not try? Psychopath's preferred method of mass shootings are guns. Why not start discussing limiting those methods? Of course there are issues with this. Of course there are outliers. Of course there are always workarounds...but coupling theory would argue mass shootings happen under the circumstances that we are allowing...why not change those circumstances?

---

Are you arguing suicide rates have gone down in SF since they made changes to the GG bridge?

DargelSkout said:

---

Put the crazy people away before they have a chance to lash out. Every one of these school shooters had many red flags leading up to the event.

---

Bingo. The politicians focus only on guns. Have never looked at the environment surrounding the shooters and tightening school security. There's an estimated 393 million firearms in civilian hands. Even though the govt wants your guns, I don't see people giving up weapons while the bad guys are still in possession.

I would like to ask OP this.

In the late 60's / early 70's (perhaps longer), students often carried guns to school. Friends of mine often talk about carrying them in their vehicles, walk down the street, etc. No one batted an eye, and you did not hear of mass school shootings. The question I pose to you...what changed? The guns, or was it the culture? One changed and one did not. Let's address the one that did change.

Reading comprehension isn't a strong point for those on the left. Shall not infringe. There is nothing that would make me change my mind on this topic. The most dangerous object, entity in the world is joe Biden as president.

Quote:

---

Leading Causes of Death in the U.S.

[ol]

Heart Disease

Cancer

COVID-19

Accidents/Unintentional Injuries

Cerebrovascular Diseases

Chronic Lower Respiratory Diseases

Alzheimer's Disease

Diabetes

Influenza and Pneumonia

Kidney Disease

[/ol]

---

https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/slideshows/top-10-causes-of-death-in-america?slide=12

Quote:

---

Unintentional injuries resulting from things like drug overdoses, car accidents and falls accounted for 5.9% of U.S. deaths in 2020. Total deaths from these types of occurrences increased by 27,915 from 2019, marking a 16% surge.

---

Need to take away cars and ladders...

I guess this is a daily thread now.

Two part step: first is abolish the fbi, repeal nfa and federal gun free zone laws. Also this step establish federal task force to investigate and charge for gun crimes in top 20 major cities with jurisdiction only there for 10 years. Can be former fbi. No other powers or jurisdiction. Other former fbi staff offered jobs in construction hardening schools.

Then, subject to quantifiable decrease of gun deaths and crimes of 75 percent or more, expanded background checks for 18-25 year olds.

lobopride said:

---

Mass shootings are such a small portion of the overall murder problem in the U.S. Why not start where the real problem is?

---

THIS. Everyone just runs along with the liberal narrative that these happen all the time and that there have been like 250 this year alone. In reality, there have been like 13 true mass shootings like this one, Columbiine and Sandy Hhook since the 60's.

America has a very real problem with perspective and understanding statistics. The powers that be know this and they have weaponized it against us...they know that fear and emotion are what we respond to and what triggers many of us to throw all logic and reason out the window.

We already have enough laws - more laws are not going to magically make things better. We have laws against murder, sexual assault, illegal drugs, misuse and distribution of legal drugs, on a on and look at where we are.

My shot at this.....

1) enforce existing laws. Felony charges against Hunter Biden for lying on paperwork to purchase his firearm in Delaware. This would be a start.

2) guns are only a tool. Address the root cause which is the exponentially growing mental health issue in the US. Individuals that have mental health issues will just move onto the next tool.

3) amend existing laws that protected the Uvalde shooter. This was a bad person - he had a juvenile record. I would bet most anything he was the 14 year old that was arrested in Uvalde making threats and predicted something bad was going to happen in 2022. As soon as he hit 18 - it should have been blasted across all services, etc. Juveniles are doing more and more heinous crimes, hiding under the juvy protection and then unleashed on society when they hit 18. Changing age limits only slows them down. They will eventually get what they want. Do folks honestly believe nothing bad is going to happen with these kids? The mom said he had his reasons....WTF???

Must look at root cause versus the emotion based SCARY platform, for lack of better terms. Throwing more laws on the books only places a bandaid on the growing issue.

Is thread about Hunter Biden doing crack and leaving guns in trash cans ………

Put him in jail for all the gun laws he broke THEN a conversation can be started

No thanks. You give an inch, they take a mile. The same people that are screaming are the ones that destroyed cities over the last 3 years.

I'm all for what the founding fathers intended. The ability to defend me and my family/friends when a tyrannical government overreaches its authority (see Cali, Chicago, NYC, Australia, etc.)

You have the perfect example of how to protect soft targets. Look at Isreal...... Ever notice that they are all armed all the time?

How many cases of government tyranny and crime with out repercussions will it take before you support the second amendment as written?

The smart way for the dims to get a de facto ban on semiautomatic rifles is to do somethin akin to the 1934 Act. Put them under the NFA and raise the stamp from $200 to $2,000. Remember in 1934 $200 was a large sum of money that most could not afford, and the tax was not indexed to inflation. Hence few people were able to acquire machine guns, SBRs, and suppressors. Today, those of us blessed financially to be able to buy or build an $800 suppressor can easily put down another $200 for tax stamp.

That said, I am opposed to this action, and consider it a major infringement of the 2nd.

But that would be the easiest avenue for the gun grabbers.

Dear Concerned Moderate Rook

Answer the following:

1) How many fire arm murders are committed each year

2) What percentage of that are rifles vs handguns

3) and of that percentage how many are true mass shootings

Now once you have that info, tell us WHY you think there's such an outcry over rifles when they're clearly not the real issue

Is your remedy for drunk driving to restrict the sale or possession of cars or alcohol?
Is your remedy for arson to restrict the sale or possession of gasoline or matches?
etc., etc.
These all entail "doing something", but how well do you think any of these would work?

We have two approaches that might actually make a difference. One is security for schools (adults can take responsibility for their own security), and the other is educating people to report obviously troubled young men who are threatening violence. Someone in that young man's circle knows he is coming unhinged.