Cont: Today's Mass Shooting (part 3)

[Norman Alexander]

"Mass-shooting", is (or was) a very specific and unique social phenomenon that required study and strategies to try to prevent. Random shootings, done by often mentally ill or disallusioned individuals, targeting random public spaces with heavily armed individuals often wearing tactical gear. Lengthy notes explaining their mindset and or purpose for the killing are often left.

However, none if this is true now that the sociological geniuses have decided to greatly expand and water down the definition of "mass-shooter". Why did they do it? To artificially inflate the numbers to hopefully justify and achieve stronger national gun control laws (ABSOLUTE FAILURE).

Meanwhile, we can't study the REAL mass-shooters cuz the event is no longer limited to a few truly sick and troubled individuals. Now your average gang-banger thug who does a drive-by can be considered a mass-shooter.

Nice job. Really helped society deal with this issue.

So a mass shooter is a drug nut or mental case who takes out four people. While a militia nut who takes out four people is not a mass shooter, They are just normal patriots so that doesn't count. Right?

 

[Hercules56]

So a mass shooter is a drug nut or mental case who takes out four people. While a militia nut who takes out four people is not a mass shooter, They are just normal patriots so that doesn't count. Right?

Is that what you really thing? Wow.

Patriots? More like traitors.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Is that what you really thing? Wow.

Patriots? More like traitors.

Still four people dead by gun regardless. So obviously who the shooter is is not relevant. Now you can drop the gang banger argument. The "social phenomenon" needing re-examination is the US love affair with the gun, starting with the Second Amendment.

 

[Thermal]

Personally, I would call a mass shooting as having more than one person killed or injured in an incident. Rules out lone suicides and brings it in line with the rest of the world.

I'm okay with the line at 3 or four shot, because a guy shooting a cheating spouse and her lover, or a convenience store robbery with a couple people hit is not what we would think of as a mass shooting, as in the intent to injure or kill a group indiscriminately. .

Because 4-plus dead per incident is such a US-specific and arbitrary number. It is set solely to allow the US gun nuts to say "Look! There is not really a problem at all!"

Agreed. There's nothing honest about trying to ignore a dozen people shot by saying "hey, that doesn't count because the victims survived! No gun issues here, nosiree!"

 

[Hercules56]

Still four people dead by gun regardless. So obviously who the shooter is is not relevant. Now you can drop the gang banger argument. The "social phenomenon" needing re-examination is the US love affair with the gun, starting with the Second Amendment.

If you think that a gang-banger or a bank-robber shooting and killing 4 people is the same as a mentally-ill former Marine with PTSD shooting up a movie theater killing 4 random people, using an AR-15 and wearing body armor and leaving a suicide note, having bought his weapon 5 days earlier is the SAME thing as far as criminology and sociology is concerned, we are hopeless to help our communities.

 

[Thermal]

Today I learned that a good marksman is a mass shooter, but a lousy shot is just some guy.

The **** I learn around here.

 

[Hercules56]

I'm okay with the line at 3 or four shot, because a guy shooting a cheating spouse and her lover, or a convenience store robbery with a couple people hit is not what we would think of as a mass shooting, as in the intent to injure or kill a group indiscriminately. .

Agreed. There's nothing honest about trying to ignore a dozen people shot by saying "hey, that doesn't count because the victims survived! No gun issues here, nosiree!"

So you see NO value whatsoever in seperating the gang-ganger or the bank robber, who kills 4 people, from the mentally-ill college kid who kills 4 classmates while wearing body armor, left a deranged suicide note and using an AR-15 he bought last Wednesday??

 

[Thermal]

If you think that a gang-banger or a bank-robber shooting and killing 4 people is the same as a mentally-ill former Marine with PTSD shooting up a movie theater killing 4 random people, using an AR-15 and wearing body armor and leaving a suicide note, having bought his weapon 5 days earlier is the SAME thing as far as criminology and sociology is concerned, we are hopeless to help our communities.

And a white supremacist mass shooter has different motivations than a paranoid loner shooter or an incel mass shooter. It really doesn't matter what the motivation was when you get a bullet in the gut.

 

[Hercules56]

And a white supremacist mass shooter has different motivations than a paranoid loner shooter or an incel mass shooter. It really doesn't matter what the motivation was when you get a bullet in the gut.

Ah, so the shooter's mental health, history, his motivations, what spurred him on, how he got the gun, none of that matters. Its ALLLL the same. Cuz gunz bad.

Did you get your PhD in Forensic Psychology from Harvard or Yale?

 

[Hercules56]

So basically you guys are saying:

"A dead body iz a dead body. Motivations, mental health, family history, how he bought the gun, none of that matters. All that matters is GUNZ BAD".

huh.

 

[Thermal]

So you see NO value whatsoever in seperating the gang-ganger or the bank robber, who kills 4 people, from the mentally-ill college kid who kills 4 classmates while wearing body armor, left a deranged suicide note and using an AR-15 he bought last Wednesday??

Separate them all you like. Put them into whatever piles tickles your fancy. But ultimately, they all fall under different varieties of mass shooters.

The shooter being a Roboshooter does not make you any less shot than if you are a casualty in a public drive by.

 

[Thermal]

So basically you guys are saying:

"A dead body iz a dead body. Motivations, mental health, family history, how he bought the gun, none of that matters. All that matters is GUNZ BAD".

huh.

Weirdest. Take. Evah.

 

[Thermal]

Ah, so the shooter's mental health, history, his motivations, what spurred him on, how he got the gun, none of that matters. Its ALLLL the same. Cuz gunz bad.

Of course it matters, in some contexts. It doesn't matter if he has to successfully kill 4 to be considered a mass shooter, which is what you are inexplicably fighting for so passionately.

Did you get your PhD in Forensic Psychology from Harvard or Yale?

Lol. You're the only one trying to psychoanalize the shooter to see if he fits your stereotype. The rest of us are classifying a mass shooter only by someone who shoots a mass of people, not his motivations and ******* family life.

 

[Steve]

Mother Jones and the DOJ are lying?

huh.

They want to minimize the disgusting gun death/injury situation in the good ole USA just like you.

 

[Steve]

Weirdest. Take. Evah.

Born out of abject desperation to make the USA appear less violent than reality shows it to be.

 

[Thermal]

Born out of abject desperation to make the USA appear less violent than reality shows it to be.

It's really frustrating, because I like guns. Target shooting, skeet, hunting... it's all clean fun I grew up with. But man... we just can't stop killing each other (and ourselves) with them.

To me, a gun is a heavily respected thing. Clean it, keep bullets locked away, never let anyone unsupervised near them. Hell, my wife talked me into getting rid of ALL of them when we had young kids in the house, and any other kids that came over, we were sure to assure their parents that there were no guns there. Because being safe is numero uno. Surely, though, we have to be able to find a reasonable balance? It shouldn't be so damned hard.

 

[Steve]

It's really frustrating, because I like guns. Target shooting, skeet, hunting... it's all clean fun I grew up with. But man... we just can't stop killing each other (and ourselves) with them.

To me, a gun is a heavily respected thing. Clean it, keep bullets locked away, never let anyone unsupervised near them. Hell, my wife talked me into getting rid of ALL of them when we had young kids in the house, and any other kids that came over, we were sure to assure their parents that there were no guns there. Because being safe is numero uno. Surely, though, we have to be able to find a reasonable balance? It shouldn't be so damned hard.

I have not fired a gun in many years but I generally agree. Recreational use of guns is quite acceptable, but considerable regulation, safety education, and registration must be a requirement. And ownership for personal protection is right out. That certainly will not eliminate all violent shootings but works to greatly reduce them in countries not called USA.

 

[Thermal]

I have not fired a gun in many years but I generally agree. Recreational use of guns is quite acceptable, but considerable regulation, safety education, and registration must be a requirement.

Wholeheartedly agreed. And licensing, with revocation upon certain violent behaviors. We may have a (debatably) Constitutional Right, but that can be suspended, just like your liberties and rights can be suspended if you are convicted of a felony.

And ownership for personal protection is right out.

Eeeeeehhh, I dunno. I've developed a lot of sympathy for, say, a woman living alone who does not want to be an easy target for a predator. This is, after all, a demonstrably violent society. But even that needs to be tempered.

That certainly will not eliminate all violent shootings but works to greatly reduce them in countries not called USA.

Preach it, preacher.

 

[Hercules56]

They want to minimize the disgusting gun death/injury situation in the good ole USA just like you.

That's a really unfair and ignorant thing to say. They have very intelligent and logical reasons for follow the definition used since Columbine and Virginia Tech.

They don't think we should politicize such issues so as to score ideological points.

 

[Steve]

Wholeheartedly agreed. And licensing, with revocation upon certain violent behaviors. We may have a (debatably) Constitutional Right, but that can be suspended, just like your liberties and rights can be suspended if you are convicted of a felony.

, I dunno. I've developed a lot of sympathy for, say, a woman living alone who does not want to be an easy target for a predator. This is, after all, a demonstrably violent society. But even that needs to be tempered.

I know. Even as I was writing that sentence I was thinking that some exemptions are warranted in the USA. But regulating any exemptions and determining the validity would be next to impossible. Here in the great white north hand guns for personal protection are banned, period. Hand gun shootings occur here almost exclusively in the realm of gang warfare.

Preach it, preacher.