President Trump

Want to pledge allegiance to the Drumpf? Clash with Caspian? Scared of the stickers on your mailbox? Let's hear it.
User avatar
wap
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Posts: 45163
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:52 pm
Drives: Blue Meanie
Location: Pepperland

[user not found] wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 8:25 am
wap wrote: Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:25 pm

So what is the problem?
First, a couple of level setting points. All the below is based on several decades of research funded by ASIS (the security management professional organization), the Society of Human Resource Management, and the .gov. Most of the research has been conducted at PhD level psychology and criminal justice programs, MD level Psychiatry programs, JD level law programs, and by the FBI/CDC.

This stuff is not my opinion EXCEPT where I specifically state that it is my opinion. As such, I won't debate the stuff that is well researched science, I am happy to debate my opinions and recommendations based on the science.

I am using a very specific definition of active attacker as we understand them in the security industry. The person has to be committing their attack for the explicit and sole purpose of killing. If it is an attack in the commission of another felony it is NOT an active attacker though the media likes to tell you it is.

I will typically use the term active attacker throughout this post as that is more accurate than active shooter. Guns are the second most common means of commission of one of these attacks, behind knives, so active attacker is the term we use in the industry.

So... Ready?

First we need to establish the types of attacks that occur. They can fit into four large buckets:
Attacker connected to the target - this is the guy that goes back to an office or business after being fired and shoots up the place
School Shootings - these are a sub category if attacker connected to the target but are separated out as the physical environment of attack is extremely different than an office.
Attacker unconnected to the target - the media likes to call these random. They aren't random. We might not understand the reasoning but it isn't random.
Terrorism - y'all understand this one implicitly.

Let's talk about the attackers. You can't profile these folks based on their mental health, their socio economic status, their race, etc. Etc. They are extremely average in comparison to their victims. They look a lot lIke their victims in every way. That said, men are more likely to commit attacks than women (I'll explain this in a bit).

So what do they almost all have in common? Well a huge majority of attackers (somewhere around 90%) are what we call Grievance Collectors.

Grievance Collecting is not a mental illness. It's a personality trait. (Side note: psychology/psychiatry are not predictive sciences, security is). So what is grievance collecting? Think of it this way. If you get cut off on the way to work in the morning, are you going to be thinking about it all day? Probably not. All night? Almost certainly not. Three days from now? Definitely not. A Grievance Collector is a bit different. They don't let that go. Every little slight they face in life they hold onto. So while you forgot about that guy that cut you off on your way in this morning, a Grievance Collector will say something like "hey that's the guy that cut us off!" You'll have no idea what they are talking about so you'll ask him what he means and he will say "I can't believe you don't remember that guy! It was just like... Right before Christmas! And he cut us off!"

Now, are all Grievance Collectors attackers? Of course not. We have several on this board. Are most attackers Grievance Collectors? Absolutely.

So what causes Grievance Collecting? Well most people aren't born doing it. Usually it's prompted by a significant life event: death of a parent, spouse, or child; job loss; financial crisis; failure to achieve a goal that they had mentally decided was their only path to success. As such, we can help them! Easily. Most grievance collectors simply need someone to listen, to be a friend, and over time they will move beyond it. Some may need more help than that, but simply being a friend greatly reduces the likelihood of an attack.

There are a whole slew of indicators that tell me how close someone actually is to committing an attack, but thats way too much to write here via my phone. Ultimately, regardless of those indicators. They need a hug, a friend, and some conversation. Unfortunately though, people don't pay attention to the signals early, so by the time they do they just see the grievance collector as a "weirdo."

I noted men are more likely to commit attacks than women, that is because women in or society typically turn violence inwards while men exhibit it outwards. I don't have science as to why, but that leads us to the opinion section of the post...

The above was science following is all opinion:

I have a theory why men are more likely to commit attacks.

We are all the hero of our own movie. Think about your life, you're the good guy. Well, not every good guy is always good. I can think of times in my life, specifically with women, where something I was doing made me prince charming in one woman's "movie of life" and the evil king in another's, the exact same action. But we are all the hero of our own.

So look at media these days (and by these days I mean since the mid 1930s, and as far back as Shakespeare for some of these story lines)... The hero has to take action to fight back against an injustice. Why is it such a stretch to imagine that this has is viewed by some as the societally encouraged way of acting? It's not that movies or videogames have made us more violent or desensitized us to violence (the world is at it's least violent state, ever) but rather we have created self narratives of conquering evil (self defined evil) via violence.

The male hero often 'eliminates' all his enemies, and the female tragic hero often takes her own life only for her beloved to discover he loved her the whole time.

We all think we are John Conor, no one recognizes that they have become t-1000.

To be clear, I don't think media is the problem, it's us shutting people out from a productive emotional life.

I hope that answers some questions.
Interesting. Makes a lot of sense. Re women: they also are adept at talking among themselves and getting a sort of emotional therapy from their female friends better than a lot of cases, IMO. Maybe that's why they are able to :tits: their grievance collecting away?

So, you mentioned that you know how to recognize a whole slew of indicators to you how close someone is to committing an act. How does society/LE learn to read the warning signs so we can keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of grievance collectors?
:wap: Where are these mangos?
Detroit wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:19 pm I don't understand anything anymore.
User avatar
wap
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Posts: 45163
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:52 pm
Drives: Blue Meanie
Location: Pepperland

Detroit wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 9:31 am
Detroit wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 9:02 am
This might be the most incredible bit of posting I've ever seen on any topic.

Wow. :amazing:
Well, yea. This is DFD.
:wtf:
Self post fail. :lol:
:wap: Where are these mangos?
Detroit wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:19 pm I don't understand anything anymore.
User avatar
wap
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Posts: 45163
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:52 pm
Drives: Blue Meanie
Location: Pepperland

Clownshoobie wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:01 pm
[user not found] wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 8:25 am

First, a couple of level setting points. All the below is based on several decades of research funded by ASIS (the security management professional organization), the Society of Human Resource Management, and the .gov. Most of the research has been conducted at PhD level psychology and criminal justice programs, MD level Psychiatry programs, JD level law programs, and by the FBI/CDC.

This stuff is not my opinion EXCEPT where I specifically state that it is my opinion. As such, I won't debate the stuff that is well researched science, I am happy to debate my opinions and recommendations based on the science.

I am using a very specific definition of active attacker as we understand them in the security industry. The person has to be committing their attack for the explicit and sole purpose of killing. If it is an attack in the commission of another felony it is NOT an active attacker though the media likes to tell you it is.

I will typically use the term active attacker throughout this post as that is more accurate than active shooter. Guns are the second most common means of commission of one of these attacks, behind knives, so active attacker is the term we use in the industry.

So... Ready?

First we need to establish the types of attacks that occur. They can fit into four large buckets:
Attacker connected to the target - this is the guy that goes back to an office or business after being fired and shoots up the place
School Shootings - these are a sub category if attacker connected to the target but are separated out as the physical environment of attack is extremely different than an office.
Attacker unconnected to the target - the media likes to call these random. They aren't random. We might not understand the reasoning but it isn't random.
Terrorism - y'all understand this one implicitly.

Let's talk about the attackers. You can't profile these folks based on their mental health, their socio economic status, their race, etc. Etc. They are extremely average in comparison to their victims. They look a lot lIke their victims in every way. That said, men are more likely to commit attacks than women (I'll explain this in a bit).

So what do they almost all have in common? Well a huge majority of attackers (somewhere around 90%) are what we call Grievance Collectors.

Grievance Collecting is not a mental illness. It's a personality trait. (Side note: psychology/psychiatry are not predictive sciences, security is). So what is grievance collecting? Think of it this way. If you get cut off on the way to work in the morning, are you going to be thinking about it all day? Probably not. All night? Almost certainly not. Three days from now? Definitely not. A Grievance Collector is a bit different. They don't let that go. Every little slight they face in life they hold onto. So while you forgot about that guy that cut you off on your way in this morning, a Grievance Collector will say something like "hey that's the guy that cut us off!" You'll have no idea what they are talking about so you'll ask him what he means and he will say "I can't believe you don't remember that guy! It was just like... Right before Christmas! And he cut us off!"

Now, are all Grievance Collectors attackers? Of course not. We have several on this board. Are most attackers Grievance Collectors? Absolutely.

So what causes Grievance Collecting? Well most people aren't born doing it. Usually it's prompted by a significant life event: death of a parent, spouse, or child; job loss; financial crisis; failure to achieve a goal that they had mentally decided was their only path to success. As such, we can help them! Easily. Most grievance collectors simply need someone to listen, to be a friend, and over time they will move beyond it. Some may need more help than that, but simply being a friend greatly reduces the likelihood of an attack.

There are a whole slew of indicators that tell me how close someone actually is to committing an attack, but thats way too much to write here via my phone. Ultimately, regardless of those indicators. They need a hug, a friend, and some conversation. Unfortunately though, people don't pay attention to the signals early, so by the time they do they just see the grievance collector as a "weirdo."

I noted men are more likely to commit attacks than women, that is because women in or society typically turn violence inwards while men exhibit it outwards. I don't have science as to why, but that leads us to the opinion section of the post...

The above was science following is all opinion:

I have a theory why men are more likely to commit attacks.

We are all the hero of our own movie. Think about your life, you're the good guy. Well, not every good guy is always good. I can think of times in my life, specifically with women, where something I was doing made me prince charming in one woman's "movie of life" and the evil king in another's, the exact same action. But we are all the hero of our own.

So look at media these days (and by these days I mean since the mid 1930s, and as far back as Shakespeare for some of these story lines)... The hero has to take action to fight back against an injustice. Why is it such a stretch to imagine that this has is viewed by some as the societally encouraged way of acting? It's not that movies or videogames have made us more violent or desensitized us to violence (the world is at it's least violent state, ever) but rather we have created self narratives of conquering evil (self defined evil) via violence.

The male hero often 'eliminates' all his enemies, and the female tragic hero often takes her own life only for her beloved to discover he loved her the whole time.

We all think we are John Conor, no one recognizes that they have become t-1000.

To be clear, I don't think media is the problem, it's us shutting people out from a productive emotional life.

I hope that answers some questions.
Man. Impressive.

I would have read the whole thing, but I started to phase out during the Grievance Collector part--I kept being reminded how many times I've been wronged, and how someday, I'm going to do something about it, for once and for all. You'll see.

Like other moral hot-button issues of late, I find the gun debate absurd and the arguments based upon lies (or at least false premises).

First, I'm not a gun guy: I'm a suburban middle class kid who spent half of his childhood living in Scandinavia: there were no guns in my sphere. As an adult I have target shot a great variety of guns (AR-15, Desert Eagle, semi pistols, revolvers). It was pretty fun. I've never hunted: I'd rather get my land meat from Styrofoam trays with cellophane covers. Basically I don't want to see the cute, furry creature killed before I eat it. (BTW, I'm an avid fisherman, and catch, kill and cook dozens of fish per year--go figure).

I know, love and respect a few gun guys, but I think that the collective gun guys' justification for wanting guns is silly. Just silly. 1) The second amendment is obsolete (so is, for that matter the constitution). Not even the 100-round-clipped, bump-stocked, tactical AR-15 could ever defend against the tyranny of a motivated government. You preppers can bunker up in your buried school bus, and you wouldn't have a chance. It's a false premise. 2) Guns as a home defense tool is a bad idea, statistically putting you and your family at greater risk of being killed. You're better off with a CO2 fire extinguisher for close quarters home combat. But all that nonsense is just fantasies. It's a construct to justify wanting to have cool guns, because they're cool, and they make you feel powerful. That's it. Just be honest.

I have too many cars. I remove the cats, soup 'em up, and drive like a maniac. I realize that it's dangerous to myself, my surroundings, and the environment. I can't justify it, I just like fast cars. They're cool and they make me feel powerful.
Another 5/7 post.
:wap: Where are these mangos?
Detroit wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:19 pm I don't understand anything anymore.
User avatar
troyguitar
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Posts: 20088
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:15 pm
Drives: Trek Domane
Location: Swamp

[user not found] wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:26 pm
troyguitar wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:24 pm

You're boring.

This is also why we will NEVER see any real improvements. The combo of smart people who do nothing plus dumb people who don't listen to smart people anyway == :doomed:
You're missing the point. There are tons of smart people doing things. My professional organization, the society of human resource management, psychologists and psychiatrists, that's how we have all this great info. I'm saying I can't provide a simple single answer here at dfd. That would make my previous post look short.
You have "great info" which is being used for... nothing. Which laws are you guys fixing?

Decision-makers (and decision-maker-choosers i.e. voters) do not respect :fax:

Gathering info is useless, gathering power is the only way to get anything done.
User avatar
wap
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Posts: 45163
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:52 pm
Drives: Blue Meanie
Location: Pepperland

[user not found],

I have a suggestion for step zero, but first, another question. The civilized world seems to have figured out how to minimize "active attacker" scenarios. What do they know and do that we don't? Besides making guns harder to purchase, I mean. I have theories on this too, but want to hear yours.
:wap: Where are these mangos?
Detroit wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:19 pm I don't understand anything anymore.
User avatar
wap
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Posts: 45163
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:52 pm
Drives: Blue Meanie
Location: Pepperland

[user not found] wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:36 pm
wap wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:32 pm [user not found],

I have a suggestion for step zero, but first, another question. The civilized world seems to have figured out how to minimize "active attacker" scenarios. What do they know and do that we don't? Besides making guns harder to purchase, I mean. I have theories on this too, but want to hear yours.
Ah the great myth! It happens MORE in Europe and Asia than in the United States. The difference is guns absolutely make it more deadly when they do happen.
:notsure: 'Splain.
Are you saying it happens elsewhere with knives and such, or are you referring to the recent spate of car and van attacks on crowds?
:wap: Where are these mangos?
Detroit wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:19 pm I don't understand anything anymore.
User avatar
Calvinball
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11184
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:49 pm
Drives: Pumpkin, Hellcat edition

wap wrote:
Detroit wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 9:31 am Well, yea. This is DFD.
:wtf:
Self post fail. :lol:
I assume he meant to quote my post lol


Sent from the Beer Depository
:therapist:
User avatar
troyguitar
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Posts: 20088
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:15 pm
Drives: Trek Domane
Location: Swamp

[user not found] wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:40 pm
wap wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:37 pm

:notsure: 'Splain.
Are you saying it happens elsewhere with knives and such, or are you referring to the recent spate of car and van attacks on crowds?
All of the above.

Europe attacks occur as follows:
1) knives
2) vehicles
3) guns
4) explosives

Remember terrorists are grievance collectors as well and lone wolf terrorists really look more like an active attacker than Osama.

Even without the recent attacks, attacker connected to the target attacks happen on a slightly higher rate in Europe ( essentially statistically insignificant) and a significantly higher rate in Asia than they do in the States.
Number of people killed per capita differs how :doe: ? You are very quick to spin everything in a way that makes guns look harmless.
User avatar
troyguitar
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Posts: 20088
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:15 pm
Drives: Trek Domane
Location: Swamp

[user not found] wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:35 pm
troyguitar wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:29 pm

You have "great info" which is being used for... nothing. Which laws are you guys fixing?

Decision-makers (and decision-maker-choosers i.e. voters) do not respect :fax:

Gathering info is useless, gathering power is the only way to get anything done.
It's being used to protect specific locations, like pretty much any business with a corporate security function. We don't need our law makers to put this into practice. It already is in practice. I have been emailing without superintendent and school board president for the past ten days and am consulting with them on a volunteer basis.

It's being used by HR professionals world wide.

We (royal we) don't need the government to fix this for us. Though it would make it easier, they clearly won't do it.
Ah yes, the free market "fixing" all of our problems. Why should we trust private industries to provide what is supposed to be a government function? What happens when you get too big to fail, do you get to demand whatever you want?
User avatar
troyguitar
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Posts: 20088
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:15 pm
Drives: Trek Domane
Location: Swamp

[user not found] wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:48 pm
troyguitar wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:43 pm

Number of people killed per capita differs how :doe: ? You are very quick to spin everything in a way that makes guns look harmless.
To quote myself from a couple posts ago:
The difference is guns absolutely make it more deadly when they do happen
...but you're emphasizing that it happens less often (therefore perhaps there are fewer deaths in total? I still don't know, you didn't answer) and elsewhere implying that eliminating guns would not reduce deaths. Or was it that the lives are not important enough to you because you like guns?
User avatar
Calvinball
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11184
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:49 pm
Drives: Pumpkin, Hellcat edition

troyguitar wrote:
[user not found] wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:40 pm All of the above.

Europe attacks occur as follows:
1) knives
2) vehicles
3) guns
4) explosives

Remember terrorists are grievance collectors as well and lone wolf terrorists really look more like an active attacker than Osama.

Even without the recent attacks, attacker connected to the target attacks happen on a slightly higher rate in Europe ( essentially statistically insignificant) and a significantly higher rate in Asia than they do in the States.
Number of people killed per capita differs how :doe: ? You are very quick to spin everything in a way that makes guns look harmless.
Does he now... :lol:
[user not found] wrote:
Ah the great myth! It happens MORE in Europe and Asia than in the United States. The difference is guns absolutely make it more deadly when they do happen.


Sent from the Beer Depository
:therapist:
User avatar
troyguitar
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Posts: 20088
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:15 pm
Drives: Trek Domane
Location: Swamp

[user not found] wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:51 pm
troyguitar wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:48 pm

Ah yes, the free market "fixing" all of our problems. Why should we trust private industries to provide what is supposed to be a government function? What happens when you get too big to fail, do you get to demand whatever you want?
You're backwards. This is a .gov responsibility. They have abdicated their role in it. Therefore private industry has been forced to step in. Again, as I said earlier, what we are doing isn't scalable. The .gov needs to do it in a formalized national way.
You're saying that if government stepped up and did what you are doing, then you (your whole industry) would quit, turn in your guns and walk away without a fight? (or apply to the agencies for new jobs)
User avatar
Desertbreh
Chief Master Sirloin
Chief Master Sirloin
Posts: 16809
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:31 am
Location: Beyond Thunderdome

wap wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:29 pm
Clownshoobie wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:01 pm

Man. Impressive.

I would have read the whole thing, but I started to phase out during the Grievance Collector part--I kept being reminded how many times I've been wronged, and how someday, I'm going to do something about it, for once and for all. You'll see.

Like other moral hot-button issues of late, I find the gun debate absurd and the arguments based upon lies (or at least false premises).

First, I'm not a gun guy: I'm a suburban middle class kid who spent half of his childhood living in Scandinavia: there were no guns in my sphere. As an adult I have target shot a great variety of guns (AR-15, Desert Eagle, semi pistols, revolvers). It was pretty fun. I've never hunted: I'd rather get my land meat from Styrofoam trays with cellophane covers. Basically I don't want to see the cute, furry creature killed before I eat it. (BTW, I'm an avid fisherman, and catch, kill and cook dozens of fish per year--go figure).

I know, love and respect a few gun guys, but I think that the collective gun guys' justification for wanting guns is silly. Just silly. 1) The second amendment is obsolete (so is, for that matter the constitution). Not even the 100-round-clipped, bump-stocked, tactical AR-15 could ever defend against the tyranny of a motivated government. You preppers can bunker up in your buried school bus, and you wouldn't have a chance. It's a false premise. 2) Guns as a home defense tool is a bad idea, statistically putting you and your family at greater risk of being killed. You're better off with a CO2 fire extinguisher for close quarters home combat. But all that nonsense is just fantasies. It's a construct to justify wanting to have cool guns, because they're cool, and they make you feel powerful. That's it. Just be honest.

I have too many cars. I remove the cats, soup 'em up, and drive like a maniac. I realize that it's dangerous to myself, my surroundings, and the environment. I can't justify it, I just like fast cars. They're cool and they make me feel powerful.
Another 5/7 post.
:word: Very Grievance. Such Collection.
Detroit wrote:Buy 911s instead of diamonds.
Johnny_P wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 3:21 pm Earn it and burn it, Val.
max225 wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 5:35 pm Yes it's a cool car. But prepare the lube/sawdust.
User avatar
troyguitar
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Posts: 20088
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:15 pm
Drives: Trek Domane
Location: Swamp

[user not found] wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:55 pm
troyguitar wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:50 pm

...but you're emphasizing that it happens less often (therefore perhaps there are fewer deaths in total? I still don't know, you didn't answer) and elsewhere implying that eliminating guns would not reduce deaths. Or was it that the lives are not important enough to you because you like guns?
The average attack like this does not result in 17 fatalities. It results in 0-1. Regardless of method of action.

None of my posts after my long one have anything to do with guns because as a security guy, that's not really what matters. I want to stop the attacks regardless of method of action.

The gun discussion doesn't fix the problem, it makes more difficult large casualty events, but that's not what any of my long posts are describing what we in the security industry are worrying about.

We operate within the world we operate in. The rest of it is for politics. I am worried about real lives on a daily basis within the reality I protect them.
3rd time:

Are more people (per capita) killed in attacks in the USA vs Europe?

You really love your guns. Getting deadly weapons away from people is just politics with no real world impact? Riiiight.
User avatar
KYGTIGuy
First Sirloin
First Sirloin
Posts: 5536
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:21 pm
Drives: Mazda6

What's happening?
User avatar
KYGTIGuy
First Sirloin
First Sirloin
Posts: 5536
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:21 pm
Drives: Mazda6

[user not found] wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 2:08 pm Three very specific statements:

Guns absolutely make my life as a security guy harder
More guns is absolutely zero answer to this problem
Eliminating guns would only have marginal impact on this problem.
Marginsl impact on "active attackers"

Now what about the impacts on gun deaths from these attacks?

You guys are talking past each other
User avatar
KYGTIGuy
First Sirloin
First Sirloin
Posts: 5536
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:21 pm
Drives: Mazda6

[user not found] wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 2:22 pm
KYGTIGuy wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 2:20 pm

Marginsl impact on "active attackers"

Now what about the impacts on gun deaths from these attacks?

You guys are talking past each other
See my previous post, minimal change in the number of people killed in active attacker attacks if guns are eliminated. These yuge attacks would largely disappear (or shift to vehicle attacks) but the average fatalities wouldn't move a ton.
This reminds me of Carlin's take on entropy.

The sensationalist nature inherent in this type of crime grand attention

If you have 10 minutes, listen if you haven't already

User avatar
wap
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Posts: 45163
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:52 pm
Drives: Blue Meanie
Location: Pepperland

Calvinball wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:42 pm
wap wrote:
:wtf:
Self post fail. :lol:
I assume he meant to quote my post lol


Sent from the Beer Depository
I'm sure! :lol:
:wap: Where are these mangos?
Detroit wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:19 pm I don't understand anything anymore.
User avatar
troyguitar
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Posts: 20088
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:15 pm
Drives: Trek Domane
Location: Swamp

[user not found] wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 2:03 pm
troyguitar wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:58 pm

3rd time:

Are more people (per capita) killed in attacks in the USA vs Europe?
2nd time.ive answered - more in Europe but it's statistically insignificant. Way more in Asia
You really love your guns. Getting deadly weapons away from people is just politics with no real world impact? Riiiight.
On this very specific topic (active attackers) close to 0. Roughly the same number of attacks would occur (again, knives are the most common method of action). Average fatalities in the US would drop from 35 to probably around 28 if the back of the envelope math is right. Every life is critical, but as a security guy I still have 28 lives to worry about.
You only said that there are more ATTACKS, not that there are more fatalities. How am I to know whether, say, 50 attacks with knives results in more fatalities than 10 attacks with guns? I ignore Asia because it's a vast lawless wasteland that we have no reason to emulate, I'm focused on (Western) Europe.

You're saying that there are more fatalities from attacks in Europe than there are here, and simultaneously that removing guns would reduce the amount of deaths here by around 20%? What's so bad about a 20% decrease?
User avatar
KYGTIGuy
First Sirloin
First Sirloin
Posts: 5536
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:21 pm
Drives: Mazda6

[user not found] wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 2:45 pm
KYGTIGuy wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 2:34 pm

This reminds me of Carlin's take on entropy.

The sensationalist nature inherent in this type of crime grand attention

If you have 10 minutes, listen if you haven't already

Awesome post and right on the mark!
Do you listen to "reasonable doubt"? Mark Geragos and Adam Corolla.

Marks a great attorney. He never comes out and disagrees with anyone when making a statement. He always says great point or something immediately starts taking apart their statement. Prevents a lot of arguments.

Not sure what about your part reminded me of that........

:iswydt:
User avatar
troyguitar
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Posts: 20088
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:15 pm
Drives: Trek Domane
Location: Swamp

20% reduction beats 0% bro, that's the best I've got at this point. It also would have a significantly bigger positive impact on all of the other deaths that you choose to ignore because you're unwilling to concede that YOU DO NOT VALUE LIVES MORE THAN GUNS.
User avatar
wap
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Posts: 45163
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:52 pm
Drives: Blue Meanie
Location: Pepperland

My step zero would be 2 fold:
1) Kill Citizens United.
2) Ban all political donations and federally fund all (re)election campaigns. Zero dollars from any corporation or interest group. All candidates get exactly the same amount from the government to spend on all campaigning expenses. Then limit campaigning to 3 months.

Once politicians are more beholden to their voters then to donors for their $, only then will they be interested in passing legislation that actually benefits people over corporations/lobbyists, etc.
:wap: Where are these mangos?
Detroit wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:19 pm I don't understand anything anymore.
dubshow
Senior Master Sirloin
Senior Master Sirloin
Posts: 11074
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:18 am
Drives: All of them

wap wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 3:45 pm My step zero would be 2 fold:
1) Kill Citizens United.
2) Ban all political donations and federally fund all (re)election campaigns. Zero dollars from any corporation or interest group. All candidates get exactly the same amount from the government to spend on all campaigning expenses. Then limit campaigning to 3 months.

Once politicians are more beholden to their voters then to donors for their $, only then will they be interested in passing legislation that actually benefits people over corporations/lobbyists, etc.
that would have WAY more of an affect on other industries than guns. I am all for it. What you seem to miss is the 190M gun owners that arent killing people.

Troy arguing "thats the best I got, try that and see what happens" with zero statistical ability to provide a positive outcome is just :mindblown:

Benders cold medicine for cancer is a very very apt analogy. You can "ban" guns from citizens, that doesn't make them go away. You're simply punishing a vast amount of people for a thing they didn't contribute too.

Troy, what is something in your life that you are willing to part with to see an outcome or difference? Its like me calling for a ban on $5 little ceasrs because of heart disease. Do you have heart disease? No? Well a LOT of people do and forcing them to eat better by raising the price on cheap unhealthy food is my hypothetical solution. Logically: if you make unhealthy food affordable, people will be forced to eat cheaper healthy options. We'd statically see an improvement in health on average by SOME margin, no matter how significant it is.

Your all or nothing proposals are as useful as us arming insane asylums AND school kids.
User avatar
goIftdibrad
Chief Master Soft Brain
Chief Master Soft Brain
Posts: 16746
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:01 am
Drives: straight past the apex

dubshow wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 4:24 pm
wap wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 3:45 pm My step zero would be 2 fold:
1) Kill Citizens United.
2) Ban all political donations and federally fund all (re)election campaigns. Zero dollars from any corporation or interest group. All candidates get exactly the same amount from the government to spend on all campaigning expenses. Then limit campaigning to 3 months.

Once politicians are more beholden to their voters then to donors for their $, only then will they be interested in passing legislation that actually benefits people over corporations/lobbyists, etc.
that would have WAY more of an affect on other industries than guns. I am all for it. What you seem to miss is the 190M gun owners that arent killing people.

Troy arguing "thats the best I got, try that and see what happens" with zero statistical ability to provide a positive outcome is just :mindblown:

Benders cold medicine for cancer is a very very apt analogy. You can "ban" guns from citizens, that doesn't make them go away. You're simply punishing a vast amount of people for a thing they didn't contribute too.

Troy, what is something in your life that you are willing to part with to see an outcome or difference? Its like me calling for a ban on $5 little ceasrs because of heart disease. Do you have heart disease? No? Well a LOT of people do and forcing them to eat better by raising the price on cheap unhealthy food is my hypothetical solution. Logically: if you make unhealthy food affordable, people will be forced to eat cheaper healthy options. We'd statically see an improvement in health on average by SOME margin, no matter how significant it is.

Your all or nothing proposals are as useful as us arming insane asylums AND school kids.
Image
brain go brrrrrr
User avatar
wap
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Posts: 45163
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:52 pm
Drives: Blue Meanie
Location: Pepperland

dubshow wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 4:24 pm
wap wrote: Thu Mar 01, 2018 3:45 pm My step zero would be 2 fold:
1) Kill Citizens United.
2) Ban all political donations and federally fund all (re)election campaigns. Zero dollars from any corporation or interest group. All candidates get exactly the same amount from the government to spend on all campaigning expenses. Then limit campaigning to 3 months.

Once politicians are more beholden to their voters then to donors for their $, only then will they be interested in passing legislation that actually benefits people over corporations/lobbyists, etc.
that would have WAY more of an affect on other industries than guns. I am all for it. What you seem to miss is the 190M gun owners that arent killing people.

Troy arguing "thats the best I got, try that and see what happens" with zero statistical ability to provide a positive outcome is just :mindblown:

Benders cold medicine for cancer is a very very apt analogy. You can "ban" guns from citizens, that doesn't make them go away. You're simply punishing a vast amount of people for a thing they didn't contribute too.

Troy, what is something in your life that you are willing to part with to see an outcome or difference? Its like me calling for a ban on $5 little ceasrs because of heart disease. Do you have heart disease? No? Well a LOT of people do and forcing them to eat better by raising the price on cheap unhealthy food is my hypothetical solution. Logically: if you make unhealthy food affordable, people will be forced to eat cheaper healthy options. We'd statically see an improvement in health on average by SOME margin, no matter how significant it is.

Your all or nothing proposals are as useful as us arming insane asylums AND school kids.
:whocares:
Killing Citizens United and publicly funding campaigning would make the whole election process much more fair and get better legislation passed for a broad range of things that need it, not JUST gun control.

What to do with existing guns is another piece of the puzzle.
:wap: Where are these mangos?
Detroit wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:19 pm I don't understand anything anymore.
Post Reply