Today's Mass Shooting

[Skeptic Ginger]

While I get your point, the thread is about Mass Shootings, not any special subset. Why not start a thread called This Month's Random Spree Shooter and end the hair splitting?

This one is significant because it reflects all the multiple body bags being filled, including drive-bys and other people caught in the crossfire, which accounts for a staggering amount of casket sales. The spree killers, while terrifying, are not the ones reducing the U.S. population by thousands every year.

You are missing the point which is this is a pointless thread.

 

[Steve]

No one has made this claim.

You are correct. I withdraw the statement.

Categorization happens in all areas where people are trying to fix a problem, do you oppose it across the board or only on this topic? Categorizing different kinds of cancers has not lessened or eradicated them. But that categorization leads to a better understanding that could lead to something that helps the problem.

I do not think that analogy is reasonable. but discussion would be off topic.

The need for categorization is unique to the USA. Because the high frequency of occurrences is unique to the USA. Because the availability of the specific tools used to cause the problem that needs to be categorized is unique to the USA. There is one thing the USA could do to reduce the incidence of mass shootings, regardless of categorization, to the levels in many countries where frequency is so low that there is no need to classify. The uniqueness of the USA makes that solution impossible for all practical purposes. Many more Americans are going to die while your country works its way through the categorization process and then proceeds to attempt to apply specific remedies to the categories. Better that than nothing I suppose.

 

[Steve]

You are missing the point which is this is a pointless thread.

Good point. Who needs to read about murdered Americans. Best to just ignore them.

 

[Thermal]

*thousands of dead Americans would have glanced over*

 

[Norman Alexander]

According to the FBI, violent extremism is


They list some of the more common groups of DVEs on its website:


DHS Secretary Mayorkas says the greatest threat to America is DVEs. When I go through the list of the 116 mass shootings, I only see two that may be related to domestic violence extremism. Only 18 of the 130 people killed in mass shootings so far this year might possibly be linked to a DVE.

Nope, that's you making that judgement, not the FBI. Being domestic terrorists and shooting up block parties or rival gangs are not mutually exclusive. Unless you consider gang shootings NOT domestic terrorism?

Considering that they makeup the majority of mass shootings, people who attend "pop up parties/block parties/house parties/bars and clubs" should be on the FBI's list.

If they attend en mass with guns and shoot up the place causing multiple deaths, then yes they do. And I suspect they probably are. The FBI is not in the business of promoting terrorism just to drum up their own popularity. Whatever their faults, they do know a terrorist when they see one.

 

[Max_mang]

The need for categorization is unique to the USA. Because the high frequency of occurrences is unique to the USA. Because the availability of the specific tools used to cause the problem that needs to be categorized is unique to the USA. There is one thing the USA could do to reduce the incidence of mass shootings, regardless of categorization, to the levels in many countries where frequency is so low that there is no need to classify. The uniqueness of the USA makes that solution impossible for all practical purposes. Many more Americans are going to die while your country works its way through the categorization process and then proceeds to attempt to apply specific remedies to the categories. Better that than nothing I suppose.

Please state exactly what you mean by the highlighted. I'm sure you mean "make guns illegal" or something similar, but please really explain it and how you would go about it in a way that would be effective.

Everyone thinks it's super easy, but putting toothpaste back in the tube is a nearly impossible task, you need to find another way to clean up the mess.

(BTW, I would love for a magic button to exist to vaporize all guns - I really don't like them at all. But even that would not help get to the root of why people kill or would stop people from killing.)

 

[Max_mang]

Good point. Who needs to read about murdered Americans. Best to just ignore them.

Good thing that is the opposite of what Skeptic Ginger is doing.

 

[Thermal]

Good thing that is the opposite of what Skeptic Ginger is doing.

She just told me this thread was pointless, whose purpose is to call attention to and discuss Mass Shootings?

Is this some kind of satirical performance art piece?

 

[Max_mang]

She just told me this thread was pointless, whose purpose is to call attention to and discuss Mass Shootings?

Is this some kind of satirical performance art piece?

Avoiding the nuances of the issue is on par with ignoring the problem. Doing so makes discussion pointless, unless the goal is to just complain.

 

[Matthew Best]

Avoiding the nuances of the issue is on par with ignoring the problem. Doing so makes discussion pointless, unless the goal is to just complain.

What Skeptic Ginger was doing was, in effect, saying that the vast majority of mass shootings aren't worth discussing.

 

[Steve]

Please state exactly what you mean by the highlighted. I'm sure you mean "make guns illegal" or something similar, but please really explain it and how you would go about it in a way that would be effective.

Everyone thinks it's super easy, but putting toothpaste back in the tube is a nearly impossible task, you need to find another way to clean up the mess.

(BTW, I would love for a magic button to exist to vaporize all guns - I really don't like them at all. But even that would not help get to the root of why people kill or would stop people from killing.)

As I said in the post you quoted, "The uniqueness of the USA makes that solution impossible for all practical purposes." That does not mean gun restrictions would not be a good solution, just uniquely unworkable in the USA. Yes, the USA is fated to continue to have regular mass shootings, or multiple murders if you prefer, for a long time to come. A noticeable reduction due to the effects of categorization will not be evident for a long time.

And I would not suggest making guns blanket illegal. There is a place for some guns - long guns, not hand guns or automatic fire - in a normal society.

 

[Andy_Ross]

There are more guns than people.
USA is going to have to just put up with it.
When nothing was Regular massacres are the price they have decided they are happy to pay to be allowed to own guns.

 

[smartcooky]

Please state exactly what you mean by the highlighted. I'm sure you mean "make guns illegal" or something similar, but please really explain it and how you would go about it in a way that would be effective.

Everyone thinks it's super easy, but putting toothpaste back in the tube is a nearly impossible task, you need to find another way to clean up the mess.

(BTW, I would love for a magic button to exist to vaporize all guns - I really don't like them at all. But even that would not help get to the root of why people kill or would stop people from killing.)

A. Make centre-fire semi-automatic firearms over .22cal illegal to buy, sell, swap, import, manufacture or give away*. Anyone caught doing so cops a huge fine and years of jail time.

B. Over a ten year period, have a buyback/amnesty scheme where the owners can receive fair price cash for their firearm, or a trade in for a replacement complying firearm. After the ten year period is up, any one found in possession of a firearm in A. above cops a huge fine and jail time.

C. Make magazines that hold more than five rounds illegal. Make it a criminal offense to even be in possession of one. Violation cops a huge fine and jail time.

D. Require all firearms to need a special tool to change magazines, so that it becomes more than a simple task do so.

*E. Exception for the military, but civilian possession of a military non-compliant firearm would be a criminal offence.

Of course, none of this would ever happen because "bbbbbut muh gunz"

Also, none of this violates 2A. The constitution says you can have guns, but it does not specify which types of guns, and in fact there are already laws that restrict the types of guns you can own... for example you cannot, as of right, own a machine gun, an anti-aircraft gun, an RPG launcher or a howitzer. In fact, since the constitutional amendment was ratified in 1791, I argue that the only type of guns covered should be those that were readily available at the time... single shot, muzzle loading flintlocks.

 

[Max_mang]

As I said in the post you quoted, "The uniqueness of the USA makes that solution impossible for all practical purposes." That does not mean gun restrictions would not be a good solution, just uniquely unworkable in the USA. Yes, the USA is fated to continue to have regular mass shootings, or multiple murders if you prefer, for a long time to come. A noticeable reduction due to the effects of categorization will not be evident for a long time.

And I would not suggest making guns blanket illegal. There is a place for some guns - long guns, not hand guns or automatic fire - in a normal society.

So your feeling is there's one thing the US could do, but that's impossible - ?

I don't agree there's only one thing. I feel there is a way to improve, possibly even solve the problem, but it's going to require nuanced, honest, good faith discussion to get there.

ETA to add: I'm not clear what your hangup is with categorization REDUCING anything. We categorize crimes, not because it reduces it, but because it's gives a clearer picture for dealing with the issue.

 

[Steve]

You are missing the point which is this is a pointless thread.

Avoiding the nuances of the issue is on par with ignoring the problem. Doing so makes discussion pointless, unless the goal is to just complain.

You may note that SG did not say the discussion is pointless. Nor did she mention nuances. She said the thread is pointless.

The point of this thread, as I take the plain meaning of the title, is to note the frequency of mass shootings that occur. To keep people here aware of these tragedies that affect innocent people on an all too frequent basis. Being aware of the issue and discussing it, even if not to your perceived acceptable level of nuance, is the polar opposite of ignoring it. Complaining, in fact expressing outrage, about those deaths is a perfectly acceptable response.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Also, none of this violates 2A. The constitution says you can have guns, but it does not specify which types of guns, and in fact there are already laws that restrict the types of guns you can own... for example you cannot, as of right, own a machine gun, an anti-aircraft gun, an RPG launcher or a howitzer. In fact, since the constitutional amendment was ratified in 1791, I argue that the only type of guns covered should be those that were readily available at the time... single shot, muzzle loading flintlocks.

You can own a machine gun. If it was made or imported before 1968 or registered before 1986 All you need is a bit of extra paperwork and a few hundred dollars to pay the fee. You can have an M16, a Vickers, an M60 or a Bren gun etc.
Because there is a limited expensive to buy.

Even some M16s are now more than 50 years old and count as 'Collectables and Relics'

You can own a howitzer, and AA gun or an RPG. They are classed as 'Destructive Devices' and you need the appropriate paperwork and pay the appropriate fee.

 

[Steve]

So your feeling is there's one thing the US could do, but that's impossible - ?

I don't agree there's only one thing. I feel there is a way to improve, possibly even solve the problem, but it's going to require nuanced, honest, good faith discussion to get there.

ETA to add: I'm not clear what your hangup is with categorization REDUCING anything. We categorize crimes, not because it reduces it, but because it's gives a clearer picture for dealing with the issue.

Fine. Get back to us when the categorization and reduction produce measurable results that show a reduction in mass shootings to a per capita level comparable to, say, Australia, or Germany, or the UK, or Canada, Denmark? New Zealand? China? Japan? Cuba? Fiji? Well maybe you should pick a country for comparison.

 

[Max_mang]

You may note that SG did not say the discussion is pointless. Nor did she mention nuances. She said the thread is pointless.

The point of this thread, as I take the plain meaning of the title, is to note the frequency of mass shootings that occur. To keep people here aware of these tragedies that affect innocent people on an all too frequent basis. Being aware of the issue and discussing it, even if not to your perceived acceptable level of nuance, is the polar opposite of ignoring it. Complaining, in fact expressing outrage, about those deaths is a perfectly acceptable response.

If people are fine with complaining being the end goal, then so be it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Good point. Who needs to read about murdered Americans. Best to just ignore them.

Straw man, false dichotomy, take your pick.

 

[Max_mang]

Fine. Get back to us when the categorization and reduction produce measurable results that show a reduction in mass shootings to a per capita level comparable to, say, Australia, or Germany, or the UK, or Canada, Denmark? New Zealand? China? Japan? Cuba? Fiji? Well maybe you should pick a country for comparison.

Again with the categorization equals reduction thing. ??