Cont: Today's Mass Shooting (2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Start by defining "assault weapon".

This may be a bit idiosyncratic for some people's tastes, but I go with "any weapon designed specifically to kill a lot of people in s short amount of time." Or even more broadly (for those who want to quibble on the meanings of "a lot" and "short") guns whose sole practical application is mass killing.
 
We could just make a law that says "Any gun (meant for, sold to, or possessed by a private citizen) must require a distant action separate from pulling the trigger (including but not limited to pump action, bolt action, lever action, or slide action) between firing of rounds" and be 99% of the way there.

Again the idea that the law is just sooooooooooooo hard to write is not ringing true to me.

I mean the US Government passed the Patriot Act and it boiled down to "Whatever we say it means to defeat terrorism" so spare me.

"Legalese" is yet another thing that only gets invoked when convenient to stall out a process.
 
Last edited:
We could just make a law that says "Any gun (means for, sold to, or possessed by a private citizen) must require a distant action separate from pulling the trigger (including but not limited to pump action, bolt action, lever action, or slide action) between firing of rounds" and be 99% of the way there.

I'd agree that it would be pretty easy to draft legislation to ban semi-auto functionality, if that were the goal.

Prohibiting any firearm that used the energy of the firing round to operate any element of the action would be pretty easy for some lawyer to define.

The problem is that so many american like guns and only want to ban the "bad" ones, which really isn't a distinction that actually exists. I really doubt there's anywhere close to the majority required to make banning semi-auto firearms feasible.
 
The above makes zero sense. But, whatever.

It makes sense to me. You're saying "why focus on a resolution that will stop these school shootings when there are a ton of other mass shootings (especially among those black people) that should be focused on more."

I look at that as a false dichotomy. We can focus on both. We can work to resolve both. The Venn Diagram between mass murders at schools and mass shootings in places like Chicago probably have significantly more overlap than one might expect.
 
...Of course 20 dead kids is something to worry about...but it is statistically insignificant when we look at the big picture of mass shootings, gun crimes, and homicides in the US.

And the shooting of a president is even more statistically insignificant (it's only one death after all), so why should we bother with the Secret Service?

My point is, you need to bear in mind the psychological impact of school shootings. They make children everywhere afraid to go to school, forcing them to grow up in an environment where every day they are reminded they live in a dangerous time where they or their friends may face death at any moment without warning, for no reason, and they can't do anything about it. I suspect it leads to a certain hopelessness that anything can be changed for the better, that the world can ever be made a safer place. It's a lousy way to grow up, and impacts society all out of proportion to what the sterile statistics may indicate.
 
Last edited:
I made a comment a while back about "Murder Weekend". Seems like now it's up to "Murder Quarter". I first thought of "Murder Season" but that sounds like a movie title.
 
I made a comment a while back about "Murder Weekend". Seems like now it's up to "Murder Quarter". I first thought of "Murder Season" but that sounds like a movie title.

I think we may be evolving towards "Murder Epoch." Or maybe the "Murdercene" (kind of has a ring to it)? Or even "Murderzoic"? Yeah, why stop with humans -- just kill all life! Yee Haw!
 
Last edited:
It makes sense to me. You're saying "why focus on a resolution that will stop these school shootings when there are a ton of other mass shootings (especially among those black people) that should be focused on more."

I look at that as a false dichotomy. We can focus on both. We can work to resolve both. The Venn Diagram between mass murders at schools and mass shootings in places like Chicago probably have significantly more overlap than one might expect.


Not exactly true. I am saying to put the most focus, and most consistent focus, on the areas that will make the most impact. Instead, we have a large number of people who only come out of the woodwork when some kids get shot up in a certain set of circumstances.

After a little bit of time passes, these folks will mostly crawl back into their caves. They will remain silent as vastly greater numbers of people, including children, are shot in "run of the mill" mass shootings.

We "could" focus on both. But we don't. I mean hell, some people get upset when the statistics are laid out, and start calling people "racists" for simply presenting the facts. A lot of people just turn away from truths they find unpleasant, and lash out.
 
Last edited:
This may be a bit idiosyncratic for some people's tastes, but I go with "any weapon designed specifically to kill a lot of people in s short amount of time." Or even more broadly (for those who want to quibble on the meanings of "a lot" and "short") guns whose sole practical application is mass killing.
Any semi-automatic weapon firing a round with greater than 500J energy at the muzzle.
That'd leave manual repeaters, with an integral magazine of no more than three rounds capacity, for hunting and target shooting et cetera.
 
...I mean hell, some people get upset when the statistics are laid out, and start calling people "racists" for simply presenting the facts. A lot of people just turn away from truths they find unpleasant, and lash out.

If you're genuinely interested in the topic -- as opposed to say indulging some juvenile impulse to troll those know-it-all libtards on the Skeptics forum who think they're so smart -- you could do worse than checking out Who Commits Crime, which sums up neatly as follows:

Why do these [ethnic] differences exist? A racist explanation would attribute them to biological inferiority of the groups, African Americans and Latinos, with the relatively high rates of offending. Such explanations were popular several generations ago but fortunately lost favor as time passed and attitudes changed. Today, scholars attribute racial/ethnic differences in offending to several sociological factors (Unnever & Gabbidon, 2011). First, African Americans and Latinos are much poorer than whites on the average, and poverty contributes to higher crime rates. Second, they are also more likely to live in urban areas, which, as we have seen, also contribute to higher crime rates. Third, the racial and ethnic discrimination they experience leads to anger and frustration that in turn can promote criminal behavior. Although there is less research on Native Americans’ criminality, they, too, appear to have higher crime rates than whites because of their much greater poverty and experience of racial discrimination (McCarthy & Hagan, 2003).

In appreciating racial/ethnic differences in street crime rates, it is important to keep in mind that whites commit most white-collar crime, and especially corporate crime, as it is white people who lead and manage our many corporations. Just as social class affects the type of crime that people do, so do race and ethnicity. Wealthy, white people commit much crime, but it is white-collar crime they tend to commit, not street crime.

I'm sure you'll check this out, unless of course you're one of those people who just turns away from truths they find unpleasant, and lash out.
 
I'm sure you'll check this out, unless of course you're one of those people who just turns away from truths they find unpleasant, and lash out.


Did you not read the recent posts in the thread? I have already agreed that poverty seems an area of focus, along with a culture that glorifies urban violence. I have already clearly stated that race in itself does not make people mass shooters or criminals.
 
LoL this is awesome. So now you've moved on to being completely disingenuous when I was making a clear point?
Your point wasn't obviously clear to me or I wouldn't have wasted my time looking up the information. If you would've said that honkies are the ones committing mass murders if schools, I probably wouldn't have replied because I believe that is correct.

The statista.com stats you linked to are bunk. Even if they weren't, it would disprove your claim that whites commit mass shootings at a disproportionate rate. White's account for approximately 60% of the population while committing only 53% of the mass shootings according to the link.
 
Did you not read the recent posts in the thread? I have already agreed that poverty seems an area of focus, along with a culture that glorifies urban violence. I have already clearly stated that race in itself does not make people mass shooters or criminals.

It's the "race in itself" part that is troubling. My argument is that race, as an intrinsic completely-out-of-context quality, plays no part. If in an alternate universe version of the USA the races were reversed, with whites the historically discriminated-against minority and blacks in positions of wealth and power, I am 100% convinced the crime rates would be exactly as they are today, except the numbers currently associated with blacks would be for whites and vice versa. Do you agree with me?


ETA: Let me put it another way. Suppose you could somehow quantify the impact of poverty and mathematically remove it from the equation. Ditto for the effects of living in urban areas, the hopelessness of living in a society that discriminates against you, and so on until you've accounted for everything except racial differences. Do you think there would still be any statistical difference in the crime rates for whites and blacks?
 
Last edited:
It's the "race in itself" part that is troubling. My argument is that race, as an intrinsic completely-out-of-context quality, plays no part. If in an alternate universe version of the USA the races were reversed, with whites the historically discriminated-against minority and blacks in positions of wealth and power, I am 100% convinced the crime rates would be exactly as they are today, except the numbers currently associated with blacks would be for whites and vice versa. Do you agree with me?


Sure, it could be any group that faced similar environmental influences. Black, white, green...I don't see where it would matter much at all.
 
Sure, it could be any group that faced similar environmental influences. Black, white, green...I don't see where it would matter much at all.

Ah, we've whittled away our differences and find that we agree on a core baseline point. It's a start, I guess!
 
...

Here, maybe this will help.

I'm kidding, it won't help at all. You'll be back with some other ****-ery and it will be equally as hilarious.

ETA: While those aren't JUST school mass shootings, it proves the same point. I'll take some more time and see if I can track down specifically school shootings where 3 or more people are killed to break them down by race.
From that link mass killing is:
(defined by the source as a single attack in a public place in which four or more victims were killed)
That's a reasonable definition. I think add to the "four or more" and/or 'no specific victims were targeted'. That would expand the definition used here to include some drive-bys but not all of them.

The issue is mass shootings are in a different category from the rest of gun deaths both because the victims are unrelated (IOW strangers) to the shooter and because the motives of the shooters are completely different.

It should exclude some gang bangers shooting into a party or group of their rivals. Those are a different kind of shooting incident.

The reason to separate the different kinds of shooters and incidents is talking about causes and preventative measures are different. Trying to cover other kinds of gun deaths in this thread has only served to distract from a meaningful discussion.

Addressing race in these mass shootings is legitimate, if they are mass shootings. Again otherwise the discussion devolves into one about racism. And it includes the lie that those who don't want that discussion in this thread we must be indifferent to the other kinds of gun deaths. ... more distraction from the thread discussion.
 
The hilarious part is you quoting a source that represents that there were only 129 mass shootings in the US over a 40-year span. I feel like you have missed a whole lot of posts in this thread; including the ones about that laughable stat.

Isn't 129 mass shooting horrible enough for a supposedly civilised country?
 
Start by defining "assault weapon".

I would say any intermediate cartridge semi or full auto weapon.

But I would ban all automatic and semi-automatic weapons whatever their cartridge. Pistols and shotguns included.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom