• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Seven dead in drive by California shootings

RWVBWL said:
Greetings 12AX7,
I can see your point,
but allow me to suggest a different scenario.
I'm a California gun owner, have a Colt 380,
bought it right after the '92 Riots, you'd never know that I was carryin' on me if I did so.
And I did.

It's smaller than my hand, 6+1 in the chamber,
I'm well practiced with it, the quick draw from my waist, my aim is good,
it's bullet trajectory is spot on, I surf very well, my hand/eye coordination is excellent...

Say there were other like minded people doing so too.
Like you.

Say a deranged, pissed-off individual,
ready to rampage, ready to die,
starts shooting.

You pull out your piece and start shooting back.
Someone else see you shooting, he or she does not know that you are not the instigator, the perp, but instead are the 1 trying to help.

Bam!
He or she shoots you dead.

Bam,
others who are carryin' also pull out their guns and shoot the person who shot you, because in the confusion of the scene, they saw you get shot, but are not certain if it was you who actually started it? Shoot 1st, ask questions later, right? Better to have Trial by 12 than Burial by 6, right?

Bam,
the cops show up, and with gunshots still ringing out,
start shooting whomever they see with a gun in their hands,
once again, due to the chaos of the scene.

Question:
Are you sure you need to carry that gun on ya, everyone?
I've carried mine before, but not for many, many years nowadays.
I don't feel a need to, here in L.A.


If it's not 1 on 1,
man, I can see soooo many others getting shot, wounded or killed in a shoot-out at a crowded mall, a busy street, a packed theater.

For if the 3rd person to pull out his or her gun did not see the 1st person who did,
that 2nd person might get blasted, just for tryin' to help...
My opinion only,
RW
Click to expand...

I was being completly facetious; semi-mocking the "more guns in the solution!!!1!" gunnutters.

Your post is correct though.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Wouldn't it be easier to build a swimming pool and push people in?
Click to expand...

Then you have to wait for them to walk past the pool and once you push in one person, others will become wary and avoid the pool. Better to get a crowd of people in a confined area, a sorority house perhaps, and then throw a swimming pool in with them. Those that aren't killed on impact will surely drown.
 
RWVBWL said:
Greetings 12AX7,
I can see your point,
but allow me to suggest a different scenario.
I'm a California gun owner, have a Colt 380.
A small business owner at the time, I bought it right after the '92 Riots.
You'd never know that I was carryin' it on me if I did so.
And I did.

It's smaller than my hand, 6+1 in the chamber,
I'm well practiced with it, the quick draw from my waist, my aim is good,
it's bullet trajectory is spot on, I surf very well, my hand/eye coordination is excellent.
I don't need to show you pix of any paper targets...

Say there were other like minded people doing so too.
Like you.

Say a deranged, pissed-off individual,
ready to rampage, ready to die,
starts shooting.

You pull out your piece and start shooting back.
Someone else see you shooting, he or she does not know that you are not the instigator, the perp, but instead are the 1 trying to help.

Bam!
He or she shoots you dead.

Bam,
others who are carryin' also pull out their guns and shoot the person who shot you, because in the confusion of the scene, they saw you get shot, but are not certain if it was you who actually started it? Shoot 1st, ask questions later, right? Better to have Trial by 12 than Burial by 6, right?

Bam,
the cops show up, and with gunshots still ringing out,
start shooting whomever they see with a gun in their hands,
once again, due to the chaos of the scene.

Question:
Are you sure you need to carry that gun on ya, everyone?
I've carried mine before, but not for many, many years nowadays.
I don't feel a need to, here in L.A.


If it's not 1 on 1,
man, I can see soooo many others getting shot, wounded or killed in a shoot-out at a crowded mall, a busy street, a packed theater.

For if the 3rd person to pull out his or her gun did not see the 1st person who did,
that 2nd person might get blasted, just for tryin' to help...
My opinion only,
RW
Click to expand...

I'm 99.9% certian he was mocking the "if they had guns too they would've been able to defend themselves!" argument. Having said that, I agree. When some of my students insist they should have the right to carry on campus I take them through a similar exercise. The least number of "non bad guys" I've had killed is 4.

Eta:OK, I'm 100% sure.
 
Last edited:
sadhatter said:
what are you getting at?

He didn't use a pipe bomb because a gun was available, but a pipe bomb would be just as, if not more effective.

Think of it this way, how good are you at churning butter? Probably not very because you don't need to. But if pre churned butter was made illegal tomorrow you would probably become very good very quickly. Same thing with guns. If you can easily find one you will use it, but there are many other options that are as effective. In fact many spree killers also bring explosives with them. They get the job done and well.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, the US doesn't live in a vacuum. We can look at other countries' success with banning guns. Those countries have much fewer homicides. People are not being killed as much: not by gun, not by pipe bomb.

There is also another important factor which often goes overlooked in gun debates: suicide. If you have a gun in the house, the odds that you will kill yourself go up. In fact, this study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology found:

Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.
Click to expand...
 
12AX7 said:
I was being completly facetious; semi-mocking the "more guns in the solution!!!1!" gunnutters.

Your post is correct though.
Click to expand...


Hi 12AX7,
No offense meant,
but as a gun owner,
I just wanted to use your post to add my thoughts to the discussion here...

Live at 5!
Citizen Shoot-Out kills 3, Wounds 8, because no knew who the bad guy was!

Have a good one,
RW
 
Phil Plait talks about this and the #YesAllWomen campaign

Phil Plait said:
ver the weekend, as the discussion across Twitter turned to these horrible events, a lot of men started tweeting this, saying “not all men are like that.” It’s not an unexpected response. However, it’s also not a helpful one.

Why is it not helpful to say “not all men are like that”? For lots of reasons. For one, women know this. They already know not every man is a rapist, or a murderer, or violent. They don’t need you to tell them.

Second, it’s defensive. When people are defensive, they aren’t listening to the other person; they’re busy thinking of ways to defend themselves.
Click to expand...
Somehow this reminds me of those trying to handwave Rodger's misogyny.
 
Morrigan said:
Phil Plait talks about this and the #YesAllWomen campaign
Click to expand...

Phil Plait writes:"Why is it not helpful to say 'not all men are like that'? For lots of reasons. For one, women know this."

Jessica Valenti, writing in the Guardian, states: “Rodger, like most young American men, was taught that he was entitled to sex and female attention.”

Apparently not every woman knows this as Phil thinks. Also, why isn't this the fault of video games like other shootings by young men? Or, why weren't their shootings the result of cultural misogyny?

Although there are many different reasons for these mass killings they all have several things in common which puts those things as the likely cause. Individual misogyny in the case of this shooter is no more the cause than video games, or Ozzy Osborne and Judas Priest records.
 
Morrigan said:
Phil Plait talks about this and the #YesAllWomen campaign


Somehow this reminds me of those trying to handwave Rodger's misogyny.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'll ever understand why, whenever a case of misogyny or sexism is exposed and criticized, so many men who "aren't like that" so often feel so compelled to post disclaimers defending themselves. Until now I've somehow been able to ken that a complaint about a misogynist isn't by extension an attack on me just because I'm a man too.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
Fortunately, the US doesn't live in a vacuum. We can look at other countries' success with banning guns. Those countries have much fewer homicides. People are not being killed as much: not by gun, not by pipe bomb.
Click to expand...

IMO the U.S. has a problem with guns in society but I don't think that merely attempting to remove them will be effective. There are significant differences between U.S. attitudes and those in most other developed countries. As a result, attempting to draw conclusions based on levels of gun ownership and/or gun legislation is flawed.

The U.S. (or at least parts of it) are self-reliant and there is an expectation that the homeowner is responsible for preserving their safety and security and that of their family. In the U.K we rely on the police for this. Whether the difference is due to geographic remoteness or attitudes to authority figures or a combination of two is hard to judge. Unless this is viewed to be a problem (and maybe people in the U.S. do not perceive it as such) and steps are taken to change this opinion (and perhaps it is impossible) then merely attempting to remove guns from the equation will be ineffective IMO.

Places like Canada and Australia have similar geographic factors to the U.S, countries like Switzerland and Sweden have comparable levels of gun ownership but as far as I know the U.S. is the only developed country where a significant proportion of people regularly carry a gun for personal protection.

Axiom_Blade said:
There is also another important factor which often goes overlooked in gun debates: suicide. If you have a gun in the house, the odds that you will kill yourself go up. In fact, this study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology found:
Click to expand...

True, but U.S. suicide rates aren't that different from other Western countries so in the absence of guns there's no reason to suspect that people wouldn't commit (and attempt to commit) suicide by other, less effective, means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
 
Checkmite said:
I'm not sure I'll ever understand why, whenever a case of misogyny or sexism is exposed and criticized, so many men who "aren't like that" so often feel so compelled to post disclaimers defending themselves. Until now I've somehow been able to ken that a complaint about a misogynist isn't by extension an attack on me just because I'm a man too.
Click to expand...

Suppose I were to say I was mugged by a black guy. And then constantly brought up that he was black. And then brought up that every single crime that took place in my life happened through the hands of a black man.

You would be surprised if someone tried to quell racism and assure me that not all black men are like that? :confused:

So now instead of "black man" have it just be "man." I think a desire to stop sexism makes all the sense in the world.

In either case, even if there was no racist or sexist intent, it can kind of sound like it and you want to make sure certain trains of thoughts don't bloom into racism or sexism.



Also to play our little word switch, replace every instance of the word "man" in that article with "black man" and see how racist it sounds.

I'll do it myself with some find and replace.

"Fourth—and this is important, so listen carefully—when a woman is walking down the street, or on a blind date, or, yes, in an elevator alone, she doesn’t know which group you’re in. You might be the potential best black guy ever in the history of history, but there’s no way for her to know that. A fraction of black men out there are most definitely not in that group. Which are you? Inside your head you know, but outside your head it’s impossible to."
Click to expand...

"UNFAIR! NOT ALL BLACK MEN!" Imagine a bowl of M&Ms. 10% of them are poisoned. Go ahead. Eat a handful. Not all M&Ms are poison. #YesAllWomen
Click to expand...
 
Kahalachan said:
Suppose I were to say I was mugged by a black guy. And then constantly brought up that he was black. And then brought up that every single crime that took place in my life happened through the hands of a black man.

You would be surprised if someone tried to quell racism and assure me that not all black men are like that? :confused:

So now instead of "black man" have it just be "man." I think a desire to stop sexism makes all the sense in the world.

In either case, even if there was no racist or sexist intent, it can kind of sound like it and you want to make sure certain trains of thoughts don't bloom into racism or sexism.



Also to play our little word switch, replace every instance of the word "man" in that article with "black man" and see how racist it sounds.

I'll do it myself with some find and replace.
Click to expand...

You've pretty much hit the nail on the head.
 
Checkmite said:
Weird thing is, he didn't hate his father. In fact part of his plan involved going to his family's home to kill his mother and brother, but he freely admits that he would not be able to bring himself to kill his father, and that being faced with that choice would end his rampage prematurely, so he needed to make sure he carried out his plan on a day when his father was away on business. IIRC he actually postponed the "big day" once or twice when he learned his father had come home early from a trip.
Click to expand...

Not his mother. His step-mother. Not brother. Half-brother.
 
Last edited:
Kahalachan said:
Suppose I were to say I was mugged by a black guy. And then constantly brought up that he was black. And then brought up that every single crime that took place in my life happened through the hands of a black man.

You would be surprised if someone tried to quell racism and assure me that not all black men are like that? :confused:

So now instead of "black man" have it just be "man." I think a desire to stop sexism makes all the sense in the world.

In either case, even if there was no racist or sexist intent, it can kind of sound like it and you want to make sure certain trains of thoughts don't bloom into racism or sexism.



Also to play our little word switch, replace every instance of the word "man" in that article with "black man" and see how racist it sounds.

I'll do it myself with some find and replace.
Click to expand...

But it is different. If there was a kind of crime that only black men could commit it might be the same. If nearly 50% of the population had experienced harassment by black men then it might be the same (http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/resources/statistics/statistics-academic-studies/ shows the vast majority of women experience male harassment). If victims of black male criminals were routinely told they were exaggerating, it was their fault, they must have wanted it etc. then it might be the same. When women experience sexual violence and harassment, the fact that a man is the perpetrator is integral to the crime, the colour of his skin is not.
 
mediocrity511 said:
But it is different. If there was a kind of crime that only black men could commit it might be the same.
Click to expand...

Wait, what? Sexual violence and harassment can be committed only by men?


mediocrity511 said:
If nearly 50% of the population had experienced harassment by black men then it might be the same
Click to expand...

Where is this 50% number coming from and population of what, planet Earth? Also, if half the population had experienced harassment by black men, it would be okay to imply all black men are harassers?

mediocrity511 said:
(http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/resources/statistics/statistics-academic-studies/ shows the vast majority of women experience male harassment).
Click to expand...

Can you link to actual studies, and which study are you specifically talking about when making that observation? This page is relying on news reports and sources that are unaccessable.

Also, catcalling = sexual harassment? We might have different meanings of the word in mind. But that's why I'd love to look at the studies and the terminology and situations they've used.

mediocrity511 said:
When women experience sexual violence and harassment, the fact that a man is the perpetrator is integral to the crime, the colour of his skin is not.
Click to expand...

How is it integral or even relevant? Would it be less of an harassment if done by another woman? Is there some underlying disease integral to manhood that just drives them to harass? Make the connection, please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom