What if your audio hobby was killing folks?

[ATLAudio]

I have a slight amount of pity for responsible owners of assault firearms. Most do the right thing, and they enjoy shooting them at the range.

So what would you do if (hypothetically) your audio hobby could cause this level of potential harm?

Would you be like that guy who’s sawed his AR15 in half?

Thoughts?

 

[shadyJ]

To answer the title question, if your hobby was killin' folks, you would be a serial killer. I suppose everyone has to have a hobby. Fellow I used to know liked to strangle coeds. Me, I like collecting stamps, sos I can't really be judgemental. It's a topsy-turvy world we live in!

 

[j_garcia]

I'll have to add some speakers to this one...

 

[rojo]

 

[ATLAudio]

To answer the title question, if your hobby was killin' folks, you would be a serial killer. I suppose everyone has to have a hobby. Fellow I used to know liked to strangle coeds. Me, I like collecting stamps, sos I can't really be judgemental. It's a topsy-turvy world we live in!

The question is in the post, not meant as directly.

 

[TechHDS]

Lmao!..smooth man..lolo

 

[KEW]

If we had Parallels to gun ownership, and Be tweeters were like assault rifles, I'd be willing to make do with lesser gear to save lives.

Until you define the circumstances of this association, I think it is hard to get enough traction to get anywhere with this conversation!

 

[highfigh]

I have a slight amount of pity for responsible owners of assault firearms. Most do the right thing, and they enjoy shooting them at the range.

So what would you do if (hypothetically) your audio hobby could cause this level of potential harm?

Would you be like that guy who’s sawed his AR15 in half?

Thoughts?

Why would you pity that many gun owners for the actions of such a small number of deranged people?

49 people died from dog attacks last year. More than 520 people have died in auto racing in the past 25 years. One air show crash killed 77 and injured more than 500, in 2002.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/air-show-disasters-5-deadliest-in-history-1.3201822

Here's a link with some stats- it's not hobbyists who are killing in great numbers/gun owner, it's a lot of cumulative injuries and deaths, caused by access to firearms that shouldn't have been accessible.

https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/gun-deaths-increase-2017/

How many people die because of carjacking and the ensuing chases? How many die because of gang activity? How many die when they pulled a gun or fired on Police officers? From the following link, "As reported by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 106,727 fatal crashes – 55.7 percent of the total – during a recent four-year period involved drivers who committed one or more aggressive driving actions."

https://www.kraftlaw.com/accidents-lawyer/car-accidents/causes-car-accidents/car-accidents-caused-aggressive-driving/

Adam Lanz's mother bought guns for him and didn't make them unavailable most of the time, leading to her death and the deaths at Sandy Hook. Nikolas Cruz had guns and when the people who housed him a the end found out about them, the husband stopped on the way home to buy a gun safe, but didn't make sure he was the one with the keys (even said he didn't know Cruz had a key).

Stephen Paddock had been out of touch with family members and was described as disliking interactions with people.

Then, there are the ones who are shot while "cleaning their gun". You can't clean a loaded weapon- some disassembly is required. If they do accidentally shoot themselves, it's either not an accident, careless handling or they don't know enough about guns to be the responsible party.

I saw a news story from Phoenix, about a program for handing out clean needles and supplies to addicts- the reporter was there as this "pop up" event occurred and said that out of 93 people who showed up, only two were homeless- the rest drove up, many in expensive cars and most were young-ish, well-dressed women whose common mode of becoming addicted was through prescription pain meds. More than 65K people died last year from Opiates but people aren't as outraged by that. My neighborhood lost two young adults in about 1-1/2 years and I know the father of one and the other lived two houses from me.

People are very unhappy, for many reasons. If they weren't, they wouldn't need to medicate themselves or do something drastic.

 

[pewternhrata]

I have a slight amount of pity for responsible owners of assault firearms. Most do the right thing, and they enjoy shooting them at the range.

So what would you do if (hypothetically) your audio hobby could cause this level of potential harm?

Would you be like that guy who’s sawed his AR15 in half?

Thoughts?

What if you are a wine/whiskey/beer enthusiast. Kids get a hold of it all the time and become reckless. Is it different bc it's alcohol? because we don't hear enough about it in mainstream media? No one threatens to take away booze (I like my beer) most I hear is lowering the age to 18.
It wouldn't bother me if someone poured all theirs down the drain, buy it or dont.
But again the difference is guns...guns...guns...no one needs one, I tend to agree in reason, but also no one needs booze right?

 

[Johnny2Bad]

My Audio Hobby IS killing people, although not people in North America. I mean, there was a war over the minerals used to make loudspeakers (alnico) in Zaire for about thirty years. That's just a few of the more obvious deaths related to this hobby.

Furthermore, just living in a first world nation means you are killing people less blessed. What do people read for news anymore, to be unaware of these things? It's a naive question.

On a technical nature, I don't think many people *are* using "assault weapons" on a personal level. What people are using is "assault-style weapons" which are single-shot semi-automatic rifles, the same as any hunting rifle, in function. They just have a menacing appearance, and a typically shorter barrel by a few inches.

The technical term is "carbine*" which is what Police Forces say they want to buy when asking for money or when asked by citizens what they store in the trunk, instead of saying they store "assault-style rifles". Makes people nervous, you see.

So, by using the term "assault rifle" (which is a type of weapon generally reserved for the military) you show a political position (even if inadvertently), by using the more correct "assault-style weapon" you still reveal a political bent, as it is still a slang term, and one that most style guides (a set of rules for publication, most newspapers have an official one that writers are supposed to follow) would put in quotation marks to indicate so, and by using "carbine" you are using the technically correct, neutral term that won't sell any newspapers.

* Carbine = semi-automatic short-barreled rifle.

 

[Pogre]

Like, if audio was somehow weaponized and folks were using it on mass killing sprees?

 

[KEW]

Nikolas Cruz had guns and when the people who housed him a the end found out about them, the husband stopped on the way home to buy a gun safe, but didn't make sure he was the one with the keys (even said he didn't know Cruz had a key).

Actually, Mr. Snead (a gun owner who keeps his guns in a safe) knew about the guns before Cruz moved in and had Cruz buy a safe on the same day he moved in (they stopped at Home Depot and Cruz bought it on the way when moving Cruz into their home).

That is the part I don't get. Cruz bought the safe, but the narrative also makes it sound like Mr. Snead was intending to control access to the safe. Elsewhere Mr. Snead says Cruz had a right to own the AR-15 (and the other guns). Obviously, Cruz had a legal right to own the guns, but Mr. Snead's actions would seem to indicate that he did not trust Snead to use good judgement. He may have been concerned about Cruz committing suicide, but he doesn't say that. He did say that they did not know about Cruz's dark past and "they did not see it coming", so that would indicate they were not trying to prevent him from going on a shooting spree.

My read on this is that Mr. Snead is a good man trying to do the right thing, but he is not giving the full story. I can't really blame him, the stakes are high.
For example, he may have had concern that Cruz might go on a shooting spree, in which case he could be vilified by his own community for not taking more effective action to prevent it.

Also, we have the ironic situation of a man trying to walk a fine line of advocating gun rights while exercising his own gun control measures?

Hindsight is 20/20, but a lot of people (including people who are anti-gun control) have been critical of Mr. Snead for not exercising better gun control.

 

[highfigh]

Actually, Mr. Snead (a gun owner who keeps his guns in a safe) knew about the guns before Cruz moved in and had Cruz buy a safe on the same day he moved in (they stopped at Home Depot and Cruz bought it on the way when moving Cruz into their home).

That is the part I don't get. Cruz bought the safe, but the narrative also makes it sound like Mr. Snead was intending to control access to the safe. Elsewhere Mr. Snead says Cruz had a right to own the AR-15 (and the other guns). Obviously, Cruz had a legal right to own the guns, but Mr. Snead's actions would seem to indicate that he did not trust Snead to use good judgement. He may have been concerned about Cruz committing suicide, but he doesn't say that. He did say that they did not know about Cruz's dark past and "they did not see it coming", so that would indicate they were not trying to prevent him from going on a shooting spree.

My read on this is that Mr. Snead is a good man trying to do the right thing, but he is not giving the full story. I can't really blame him, the stakes are high.
For example, he may have had concern that Cruz might go on a shooting spree, in which case he could be vilified by his own community for not taking more effective action to prevent it.

Also, we have the ironic situation of a man trying to walk a fine line of advocating gun rights while exercising his own gun control measures?

Hindsight is 20/20, but a lot of people (including people who are anti-gun control) have been critical of Mr. Snead for not exercising better gun control.

I didn't remember when Snead found out about Cruz's guns, but as I wrote, he insisted that a safe be used for them and responsible gun ownership includes keeping them out of the hands of anyone who might use them for bad things, regardless of who that might be. If a gun owner thinks they might do something outside of target practice, hunting, collecting (for investment or intrinsic value) or self-defense, I would question the logic of them keeping the weapons.

IMO, in Snead's house, Snead gets to make the rules and if that included keeping the guns from Cruz, it's completely fair. They knew Cruz was depressed and depressed people should stay away from guns. What Snead should have done is get a safe that requires two keys.

WRT Snead not knowing about Cruz' issues, this article says otherwise- indicates that records show he had made threats with guns and that tells me Police reports may have been filed.

https://www.naplesnews.com/story/news/2018/02/22/school-shooting-family-took-accused-shooter-told-police-earlier-he-threatened-guns/365182002/

I guess we won't know for sure until later, as long as the media don't drop this event as soon as the next circus comes along.

 

[highfigh]

Like, if audio was somehow weaponized and folks were using it on mass killing sprees?

What if the sound is so amazing the people just keel over, from bliss?

Bliss kills, man! Bliss kills!

 

[KEW]

I didn't remember when Snead found out about Cruz's guns, but as I wrote, he insisted that a safe be used for them and responsible gun ownership includes keeping them out of the hands of anyone who might use them for bad things, regardless of who that might be. If a gun owner thinks they might do something outside of target practice, hunting, collecting (for investment or intrinsic value) or self-defense, I would question the logic of them keeping the weapons.

IMO, in Snead's house, Snead gets to make the rules and if that included keeping the guns from Cruz, it's completely fair. They knew Cruz was depressed and depressed people should stay away from guns. What Snead should have done is get a safe that requires two keys.

WRT Snead not knowing about Cruz' issues, this article says otherwise- indicates that records show he had made threats with guns and that tells me Police reports may have been filed.

https://www.naplesnews.com/story/news/2018/02/22/school-shooting-family-took-accused-shooter-told-police-earlier-he-threatened-guns/365182002/

I guess we won't know for sure until later, as long as the media don't drop this event as soon as the next circus comes along.

It looks like the Deschamps were the first family to take him in right after his mother died. They are the ones that made reports to the police.
The Sneads were the second (?) family to take him in and they claim "they did not see it coming".

 

[highfigh]

It looks like the Deschamps were the first family to take him in right after his mother died. They are the ones that made reports to the police.
The Sneads we're the second (?) family to take him in and they claim "they did not see it coming".

I saw that he fought with his ex's new boyfriend but not the date. If it happened after he was taken in my the Sneads, and i think it did, I would be surprised to find that they weren't notified.

Either way, people noticed things and said things but nothing was done about it.

 

[KEW]

IMO, in Snead's house, Snead gets to make the rules and if that included keeping the guns from Cruz, it's completely fair.

The world where Cruz would believe that is not the one we live in!

 

[highfigh]

The world where Cruz would believe that is not the one we live in!

And that reinforces the idea that mental issues fuel many shootings.

 

[Johnny2Bad]

What if you are a wine/whiskey/beer enthusiast. Kids get a hold of it all the time and become reckless. Is it different bc it's alcohol? because we don't hear enough about it in mainstream media? No one threatens to take away booze (I like my beer) most I hear is lowering the age to 18.
It wouldn't bother me if someone poured all theirs down the drain, buy it or dont.
But again the difference is guns...guns...guns...no one needs one, I tend to agree in reason, but also no one needs booze right?

RE: lowering the drinking age to 18

The legal age in most provinces in Canada is 19. There is a reason for that. As it turns out, I was 17 when my province lowered the drinking age from 19 to 18, based on the oft heard principle that if you're old enough to die serving your country, if you're old enough to vote, then you're old enough to drink.

So I turned 18 and became legal to drink in my province. But before I turned 18 (november) the law had already been repealed, in September of the first year it was enabled. Because of the effective date for the change back to 19 (January), I was legal to drink before and for the 10 months after the law was rescinded, while many of my friends were 18 and couldn't legally drink (Ha Ha).

The reason? Students normally don't graduate from High School before they turn 18, and student drinking became a problem in High Schools, not only with 18 YO's but with girls who could pass for 18 but were younger, sometimes much younger, as well as male students who could do the same, although they tended to be closer to 18 than the girls.

By reverting the law to 19, all that was eliminated, at least for public drinking and student drinking in High School. Chances are the same issues would arise anywhere, so don't expect a reduction from 21 to 18 anytime soon.