Dr.Sid
Philosopher
Nah, let's not use the term at all. I mean at least unless it's shooting during a mass, in a church.
Would be lot more funny if there were none.
Cont: Today's Mass Shooting (part 3)
- Thread starter a_unique_person
- Start date
Nah, let's not use the term at all. I mean at least unless it's shooting during a mass, in a church.
Would be lot more funny if there were none.
Hercules56
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2013
- Messages
- 17,176
True, unless it takes place during Sunday Mass, in Massachusetts, its definitely not a "mass-shooting".
Nessie
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 16,177
In any other country, when someone starts to shoot at people and fires multiple times, whether or not they hit anyone, it is treated as a serious incident.
Mass shootings are so common in the USA, that you want to set the bar so high as to what counts, that you can pretend the problem is not that serious. That is one of the reasons why the USA will never solve the mass shooting problem. Even when children die, you want to pretend it is not that serious an issue.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
I prefer to use the term "Spree Shootings" because it better describes the real issue.
Gang-bangers shooting it out in a turf war or insignia disagreement is not a spree shooting, despite the fact the certain members here want it to be so, especially if the gang-bangers have brown or dark skin.
A street party getting out of hand, arguments springing up, fights breaking out resulting in someone pulling out a gun and shooting people is not a spree shoot
Butt-hurt father blowing away his family because his wife won't let him have custody of this kids is not spree shooting.
However...
A random nutter entering a grade school and using a semi-automatic to kill two dozen 6 to 10 year olds is a spree killing.
A random nutter entering a place shop or a shopping mall and using a semi-automatic to kill 10+, 20+, 50= shoppers is a spree killing.
A random nutter entering a place of worship and using a semi-automatic to kill 10+, 20+, 50= worshipers is a spree killing.
A random nutter entering his former place of business and using semi-automatics to kill dozens of former colleagues is a spree killing.
One of the reasons I no longer actively participate in this thread is because the idiots, and the bigot and racists (we all know who I'm talking about) who want to make this about race and how all dark-skinned people are bad people. The way want to endlessly agonize over every piffling piece of irrelevant minutiae regarding the definition of what is, and is not, a mass shooting, instead of doing what they should be doing, agonizing over the senseless killing of innocent people including school children, and recognizing that the biggest contributing factor in all these spree killings is the unrestricted access to powerful automatic weapons that were purpose-designed to kill al many people as possible in the shortest possible time and were only ever supposed to be used in combat, by the military, when confronting an enemy on the battlefied.
Gang-bangers shooting it out in a turf war or insignia disagreement is not a spree shooting, despite the fact the certain members here want it to be so, especially if the gang-bangers have brown or dark skin.
A street party getting out of hand, arguments springing up, fights breaking out resulting in someone pulling out a gun and shooting people is not a spree shoot
Butt-hurt father blowing away his family because his wife won't let him have custody of this kids is not spree shooting.
However...
A random nutter entering a grade school and using a semi-automatic to kill two dozen 6 to 10 year olds is a spree killing.
A random nutter entering a place shop or a shopping mall and using a semi-automatic to kill 10+, 20+, 50= shoppers is a spree killing.
A random nutter entering a place of worship and using a semi-automatic to kill 10+, 20+, 50= worshipers is a spree killing.
A random nutter entering his former place of business and using semi-automatics to kill dozens of former colleagues is a spree killing.
One of the reasons I no longer actively participate in this thread is because the idiots, and the bigot and racists (we all know who I'm talking about) who want to make this about race and how all dark-skinned people are bad people. The way want to endlessly agonize over every piffling piece of irrelevant minutiae regarding the definition of what is, and is not, a mass shooting, instead of doing what they should be doing, agonizing over the senseless killing of innocent people including school children, and recognizing that the biggest contributing factor in all these spree killings is the unrestricted access to powerful automatic weapons that were purpose-designed to kill al many people as possible in the shortest possible time and were only ever supposed to be used in combat, by the military, when confronting an enemy on the battlefied.
Thermal
August Member
But that's just it: what is the "real issue"?
Whether some yahoo shoots at random people in a movie theater, or some other yahoo shoots up a bar where an argument broke out, the issue to me is the same: an unhinged citizen has access to efficient killing tools and uses them. I can't think of a reason on the world why we should think of shootings differently based on skin color or motivations or manifestos.
The ultimate issue may be mental health diagnoses and ready treatment. But the more immediate "real issue" is getting high powered, efficient killing tools out of easy availability, and IMO that goes for modified military rifles right down to Glocks. It's easier to treat the underlying mental health issues if the bastards are not pumping 60 rounds per minute at you.
Last edited:
Hercules56
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2013
- Messages
- 17,176
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
I thought I made that clear.
If you had read past the part of the post you wanted to knee-jerk react to (you know, the bit you snipped out), you would have read this...
"recognizing that the biggest contributing factor in all these spree killings is the unrestricted access to powerful automatic weapons that were purpose-designed to kill al many people as possible in the shortest possible time and were only ever supposed to be used in combat, by the military, when confronting an enemy on the battlefied."
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
I can't see how you get to this takeway from Nessie's post
Dr.Sid
Philosopher
Spree shootings are hard to prevent. The shooter is usually well motivated, has time to prepare. He uses guns, because it's easy, but will use other methods, if guns are not available. Some of them are even deadlier (truck against crowd, fire in a building).
Mental health and health in general is good idea, but acts like these happen in countries with no guns and with great healthcare (obviously, not every other week).
Another issue is people often don't seek medical help with their mental issues. Not only because it may be expensive, but also because they don't consider themselves as having mental issues. And it will be even worse if they know they are likely to loose licenses to their guns. Basically they need to get into some trouble, and have some kind of examination ordered by a court.
Still, today, even that's not enough to get your guns confiscated.
A lot can be done, just don't expect zero overnight ..
Hercules56
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2013
- Messages
- 17,176
I believe only ONE mass-shooting in our history was committed with sorta "automatic" weapons. The Las Vegas Massacre, using bump-stocks.
Thermal
August Member
Yes...yes, I saw that. You added that right after a long list of what did and didn't count as what you called a "spree killing" and why.
My question is maybe better put as "why does it make the slightest bit of difference how you characterize them and what killings you include or exclude from your term of choice?"
The "real issue" has little to do with whether the shooter was a "spree killer" or an angry party goer. I'll leave that distinction to mental health professionals who will be doing pretty much nothing. My concern is about the availability of virtually all semis, not just modified military weapons (the number one bullet used is still the 9mm, not the .223).
Our arguments are not nearly so far apart as you seem to think, but mine encompass additional weapons beyond the "trendy to hate" one, and my shooters beyond the "trendy to blame" ones.
Eta: funnily enough, in the part YOU took the time to snip out, I already said so:
Thermal said:
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
....bUt We NeEd To LoCk tHe ScHoOl DoOrS sO tHe ShOoTeR cAn'T gEt In...
(The all the kids can burn to death if there is a fire... because they can't get out)
Bogative
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2013
- Messages
- 3,104
Hey ya, smartcooky, glad to see you back. While you're here, did you ever find any examples of me leaving white shooters out of this thread because I was racist… or something?
You made the claim over a year ago, do you need more time? I'm pretty patient, so take all the time you need.
Or, if you want, jump on in and help us crowd source identities and races of all the mass shooters from the four days after the Maine mass shooting. There's got to be at least a few "spree shooters" for you to bitch about out of the 18 mass shootings. Waddu say? Should be easy enough to do since all those dirty white people are the ones committing all the mass shootings.
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
On 14 February 1929, two Thompson submachine guns and a shotgun were used to kill 7 men. The shotgun was fired twice, hitting two of the victims who would have died anyway from the numerous .45 caliber rounds that hit them. The fully automatic Tommy guns fired 70 rounds, 30 of which were removed from bodies during postmortem examination.
The St Valentine's Day massacre, as it came to be called, was perhaps the most famous of several mass murders that have been committed in the US using automatic weapons. The public response to these killings contributed to passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934.
That legislation regulated silencers and cut-down rifles and shotguns as well as fully automatic weapons:
The term "firearm" means a shotgun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within the foregoing definition.
The National Firearms Act was amended in 1968, and now regulates destructive devices as well as firearms.Bogative
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2013
- Messages
- 3,104
Speaking of white school shooters, part of the Covenant Christian school shooter's trannifesto has been leaked.
Girl had a serious dislike of white and rich people.
Is it okay for a tranny to be calling other people *******(the f slur for gay people)? I'm not sure how the oppression hierarchy works. Just curious.
Girl had a serious dislike of white and rich people.
Is it okay for a tranny to be calling other people *******(the f slur for gay people)? I'm not sure how the oppression hierarchy works. Just curious.
Last edited by a moderator:
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
How about we talk about how many people are being killed and injured by guns in America and not worry about what to call any particular incident?
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
What has a transistor radio got to do with this?
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
This is the problem.
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
Dup.