Cont: Today's Mass Shooting (2)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, nobody is forcing anyone to start a new thread. But it would seem to make sense if you want to focus only on "spree/rampage" shootings. This thread is titled "Today's Mass Shooting". And what Bogative is reporting fits that much better, imo.
And it should be this way, imo. The types of shootings that Bogative reports are tremendously more frequent, and of much greater statistical significance in injury and deaths. Personally though, I am happy with them all in one place. It gives a sense of relative scale.

We need a pretzel twisting emoji.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is why we needed the late pizza/world hunger analogy. I don't need to single-handedly solve the problem, and provide everyone with a "range of solutions". The fact that I am willing to acknowledge it and shine a light on it is a step in the right direction. Some people can't even bring themselves to do that.

Classic straw man, like anyone here said the other gun murders don't exist.

I've already mentioned my thoughts on gun control. And I have already stated that I don't know how to solve the problem on other levels...like the ones that specifically make blacks so far overrepresented in these shootings. Some have mentioned poverty is a driving force, so I suspect that is a major area to explore. And as I have mentioned, there seems to be a cultural aspect where such urban violence is glorified. These problems seem complex, to me.

Might be a good start for another thread.

 

[Andy_Ross]

This is like if someone points out that world hunger is a more significant issue than someone's pizza delivery being late. In an attempt to invalidate the position, you demand a plan to end world hunger.

We know the solution to the number of shootings is to restrict the availability of guns.

It's not difficult.

Everywhere else in the world seems to manage it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh look, there is another thread already for all those 'other' murders:

What else could be done to lower the US murder rate?

 

[Warp12]

Right, and just because gun control won't solve everything, doesn't mean it won't solve anything.

Where did I ever say gun control won't solve anything?

Do you believe that lax gun control is the reason why blacks are overrepresented in mass shootings, and shootings in general? Or would you agree that there is more to it?

 

[Warp12]

Oh look, there is another thread already for all those 'other' murders:

What else could be done to lower the US murder rate?

Nope. Discussing racial disparities in homicide rates, and solutions, is considered off-topic in that thread.

Besides, I am discussing issues directly related to mass shootings.

 

[angrysoba]

Where did I ever say gun control won't solve anything?

Do you believe that lax gun control is the reason why blacks are overrepresented in mass shootings, and shootings in general? Or would you agree that there is more to it?

Why don't you tell us why? Then maybe we can get closer to solving the problem.

 

[Warp12]

Why don't you tell us why? Then maybe we can get closer to solving the problem.

You are going in circles with this angle, and I am tired of debating it and answering the same questions with you. So we are done on this topic, for now.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Where did I ever say gun control won't solve anything?

Do you believe that lax gun control is the reason why blacks are overrepresented in mass shootings, and shootings in general? Or would you agree that there is more to it?

Nope. Discussing racial disparities in homicide rates, and solutions, is considered off-topic in that thread.

Besides, I am discussing issues directly related to [a distorted definition of] mass shootings.

ftfy.

You know darn well what the OP meant by "mass shootings". Five posts up I linked to the thread you need to be discussing your issues on.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Meanwhile, Trevor Noah weighed in on the topic of gun control: start somewhere even if it isn't everything.



And on the Samamtha Bee program an interviewer in the field addressed the "not the time" BS with people in line to go in the NRA Convention.

 

[angrysoba]

You are going in circles with this angle, and I am tired of debating it and answering the same questions with you. So we are done on this topic, for now.

You never tire of shining your light on the problem of the blacks. And yet, you are very very tired of explaining the significance of this or in coming up with ideas about solving the problem.

 

[stanfr]

But not a statistically insignificant number of victims!!

In gang and criminal related shootings, the victims are mostly other criminals and gang members, usually less than a half dozen That isn't to say there aren't innocent bystanders, but they are not the targets are they are rarely involved.

However, in spree and rampage shootings, the innocent bystanders such as shoppers, worshippers and school children ARE THE TARGETS, and as a result, the numbers are usually high. For me this is the big difference!

...snip for brevity...

Do we ever see these numbers of innocent bystander victims in the types of shootings that you and your pal Bogative want to draw attention to? I mean, when was the last time that a gangland shoot-out resulted in 20 or 30 innocent bystanders being shot and killed? In the last 10 years, 1152 people have been injured in spree shootings, and 326 people have been killed. Are the numbers of innocent bystanders killed in criminal/gang shootings anywhere near those numbers? I'd be shocked of it was more than a couple of dozen over that entire time.

ETA: While on the subject of criminals and gangs, I'm not just talking about black gangs either (although Bogative is almost exclusively). There are also Latino gangs, The Mafia (white), Irish gangs (white), Russian mafia (white), Serbian Mafia (white) and dozens of others, many of them are white, Asian, and Hispanic. The solutions for them have little in common with the solutions for the kinds of spree shooters I have listed above. Gun control measures will have little effect on gangs, who almost never use legally obtained guns to commit their crimes.
IMO, debating spree/rampage killings and criminal/gang shootings in the same thread is like discussing car accidents and aircraft crashes in the same thread - they are different problems, they happen for different reasons and they have different solutions

I agree with everything you've said--just one minor clarification which i believe is important because there is a misconception among gun rights fanatics that bad guys will always have access to illegally owned guns so only good guys will be hurt by gun control. In truth, from my experience (representing many bad guys in court) they also use legally obtained guns to commit crimes. And when they use illegally obtained weapons, those weapons generally originally come from things like burglaries or less than legitimate channels--but it is not like there are illegal manufacturers churning out loads of weapons for the 'bad guys' So in general, removing weapons from the general public will also result (over time) in getting weapons out of the hands of 'bad guys'. It is the huge number of weapons in circulation that is the underlying source of all the usage.

 

[Checkmite]

Why don't you tell us why? Then maybe we can get closer to solving the problem.

Because that would be committing himself to a position, and in the Civil Debate game that's a big fat No-Go because if he did that, he wouldn't be able to hide behind "I challenge you to find any post in this thread where I have actually said [thing I'm transparently insinuating]."

The way this game-ified Rational Discourse is supposed to work is, other people who are intellectually honest enough to state their positions outright permanently play defense while the Civil Debater plays offense by continuously Just Asking incisive and poignant Questions, crafting hypothetical scenarios, and occasionally interjecting with carefully selected facts and statistics that are clearly arranged to imply a specific position, but which the Civil Debater has no burden to support because implications and insinuations don't count as "claims".

 

[angrysoba]

Because that would be committing himself to a position, and in the Civil Debate game that's a big fat No-Go because if he did that, he wouldn't be able to hide behind "I challenge you to find any post in this thread where I have actually said [thing I'm transparently insinuating]."

The way this game-ified Rational Discourse is supposed to work is, other people who are intellectually honest enough to state their positions outright permanently play defense while the Civil Debater plays offense by continuously Just Asking incisive and poignant Questions, crafting hypothetical scenarios, and occasionally interjecting with carefully selected facts and statistics that are clearly arranged to imply a specific position, but which the Civil Debater has no burden to support because implications and insinuations don't count as "claims".

Yep, it is "look at this and draw your own conclusions".

Well, I am looking at Warp12's posts (and those of Bogative and Thermal) and drawning my own conclusions.

Of course, they might not like the conclusions I draw about them, but if they want me to draw other opinions, they only have to say it out loud what their posts are supposed to signify.

 

[Warp12]

ftfy.

You know darn well what the OP meant by "mass shootings". Five posts up I linked to the thread you need to be discussing your issues on.

I would argue that this is the least distorted definition of a mass shooting that is in use:

GVA uses a purely statistical threshold to define mass shooting based ONLY on the numeric value of 4 or more shot or killed, not including the shooter. GVA does not parse the definition to remove any subcategory of shooting. To that end we don’t exclude, set apart, caveat, or differentiate victims based upon the circumstances in which they were shot.

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/methodology

Spree shootings are a very small niche of mass shootings, overall.

 

[smartcooky]

I agree with everything you've said--just one minor clarification which i believe is important because there is a misconception among gun rights fanatics that bad guys will always have access to illegally owned guns so only good guys will be hurt by gun control. In truth, from my experience (representing many bad guys in court) they also use legally obtained guns to commit crimes. And when they use illegally obtained weapons, those weapons generally originally come from things like burglaries or less than legitimate channels--but it is not like there are illegal manufacturers churning out loads of weapons for the 'bad guys' So in general, removing weapons from the general public will also result (over time) in getting weapons out of the hands of 'bad guys'. It is the huge number of weapons in circulation that is the underlying source of all the usage.

OK, but wasn't trying to infer that criminal gangs have gun manufacturing factories (although there is such a thing as a "ghost gun"). I consider a legally owned and obtained weapon, stolen by a criminal, to be an "illegally obtained weapon" when it is in the hands of the theif.

 

[Bogative]

In gang and criminal related shootings, the victims are mostly other criminals and gang members

Evidence?

 

[smartcooky]

Where did I ever say gun control won't solve anything?

Do you believe that lax gun control is the reason why blacks are overrepresented in mass shootings, and shootings in general? Or would you agree that there is more to it?

You see, this is why you are failing to get your point across...

"Blacks are overrepresented in mass shootings" and "some homicidal maniac walks into a grade school and slaughters a couple of dozen 6 to 9 year olds" are different problems with different solutions.

... or maybe you're not failing.

Maybe you don't give a **** about classrooms full of murdered school kids? Maybe the only thing you are interested in is trying to disract everyone from that so you can push your own race-based agenda?

I can tell you, out loud, because I am not afraid to say what I really think, is that I don't give a rat's arse about criminals killing each other - I just don't care, and I don't think you really care either, I think that, like Bogative, you're just using it all for your own agenda.

Criminals and Gansters know that the world they inhabit is likely to significantly shorten their lives - that they are very likely to die by violence. They know this, and yet they stay in that world - they make that choice. But the school kids in Sandy Hook, Columbine, Parklands, Robb Elementary and others, they didn't have a say, they didn't make the choice.

 

[smartcooky]

Evidence?

Go back and look at your own bloody posts!!

 

[Thermal]

Will restricting access to firearms not also reduce shootings by black people as well as school shootings or other mass shootings that feature people of different ethnicities?

Yes, and I have said the very same thing multiple times. Why do you pretend otherwise?

Either it has some effect on reducing the numbers of killings or not? Some people seem to think that reducing the numbers of killings by restricting access to guns is not the point. You seem to be saying that the POINT is that young black men are disproportionately the perpetrators.

My POINT, should you read post #1566 again, is that the focus of the discussion tends to be on the kind of crime that many feel "could happen to them". the problem is much wider, even if the shooters and victims tend to be darker skinned than posters here.

The funny thing is that like yours truly, many here support Black Lives Matter. Except that a lot of you cats don't seem interested in the multitudes of Black Lives being snuffed out daily. Seems not to "Matter" quite as much to some of y'all.

Look at the recent Philly Shooting cited by Bogative. People carousing on South Street, a popular socializing strip, which many here have heard of:



Heavy police presence nightly. Fun place to hang out.

Then a bunch of guys pull up and open fire on the crowd. This, to me, is horrific. But not a single poster is moved to the slightest comment. Why do you suppose that posters here are indifferent to such a horrific crime? Recall the recent black man who opened fire on a Brooklyn subway. Again, no one has much to say, just a little skirting around the edges.

Gun violence is a broad menace. When posters are only interested in the "white shooting crimes", it makes some of us feel a little sick. Black Lives do indeed Matter. Walk it like you talk it.

Thermal, if restricting access to guns is not the solution, and not even part of the solution, then what is the solution? Out with it, man!

Yet again, you are making **** up. I have said many times, including on this very thread, that semis need to be outright banned. Civilians have no use for a spraying weapon, and can take a bit of extra time to manually rechamber rounds when plinking or hunting. To repeat for you again so you will stop lying about my position, I think the States need:

1. Banning of all semis
2. Licensing, revocable upon violent behavior
3. Registration of anything that goes bang
4. No open or concealed carry
4. Dramatically increased penalties for the use of a gun in any crime (clear out the prisons of guys caught with dime bags to make room)

You have any more lies you'd like to ascribe to me before moving on?