Today's Mass Shooting

[Steve]

Mass shooting - it's in the thread title.

Not necessarily deaths then. Ok I accept the correction. I think i still have time to edit

 

[Ranb]

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

The US military uses semi-auto, bolt action, pump, and revolvers. Does not leave much left for the rest of us. I suppose it depends upon how you define a military firearm.

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 might make a case for that if you could convince us that the only form of protected speech and press are those that existed in 1791.

Bombs, rockets and breech loading firearms were available back then also. But we might not agree on the definition of the word "readily".

 

[smartcooky]

The US military uses semi-auto, bolt action, pump, and revolvers. Does not leave much left for the rest of us. I suppose it depends upon how you define a military firearm.

I said "non-compliant" in reference to item A. of my post. I was trying to head off a potential loophole/back door means of civilians getting the types of weapons in A. The military would be exempt from those provisions (for obvious reasons)

All it took here in New Zealand was for one spree-shooting in which over 50 people were killed by a single shooter for us to take action and ban these types of weapons outright. In that regard we are a long, long way ahead of America, the citizens of which seem to accept that an annual firearms death toll of thousands, no, tens of thousands of people is an acceptable price to pay so that a few white guys can run about in the bush and play with their toys.

I say this as a keen shooter, and an owner of multiple firearms.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have read through this several times SG, and while you definitely make some valid points it seems a little disjointed and confusing,

I can see that the classification of characteristics would be useful in developing mitigation and prevention. I have no problem with the categories.
I am less clear on the following:

- Why are some categories specifically excluded from the definition of a mass shooting? It seems to me that they are more properly useful sub-categories that fall under the overall classification of mass shooting and/or gun violence. Saying that a person who was shot intentionally was not a victim of gun violence just seems odd.

- What does the level of press coverage or publicity of individual events have to do with mitigation? Is the idea that more general awareness in potentially affected groups will help recognize potential trouble and enable them to avoid it?

- Why bring up police shooting of troubled individuals? This is way outside any type of mass shooting.

Cherry picking: looking only at some of what I said without looking at at the rest where I explained why I said it.

Seems the discussion about what a bad person I am is a nice distraction from having little to offer in the way of solutions.

 

[Steve]

Cherry picking: looking only at some of what I said without looking at at the rest where I explained why I said it.

Seems the discussion about what a bad person I am is a nice distraction from having little to offer in the way of solutions.

Quite right. I picked out the things you said that interested me. Thought you might be interested in discussing them further. Perhaps even correcting my misconceptions. Because my inability to fully follow what you have written may well be entirely my fault.

Why do you think you I may view you as a bad person? You are quite mistaken if you think that is the case. I sincerely apologize for giving that impression even though I am at a complete loss to understand how I did that.

Could you possibly just take my questions at face value as things I genuinely do not understand? Consider me an idiot that needs repetition for things to sink into my thick skull if that helps.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

There is a solution, it's just one that the US refuses to consider.

Restrict personal gun ownership to levels comparable in the rest of the western world, as logic would dictate that would lower mass shootings of any kind to similar levels.

Apart from the practical bit, where due to the enormous amounts of guns in circulation this would probably take decades it would be possible with the right legislation.

 

[mgidm86]

The vast majority of Americans must first be convinced that they need to do something drastic about the problem. So far nothing has come even close. They have to want it.

Taking them by force? Just let me get out of the way first.

 

[Bikewer]

The rather largish pachyderm in the room regarding “getting rid of the guns” is of course, the constitution.
It’s very difficult to imagine either repealing or drastically altering the 2nd Amendment at this point in history.
The SCOTUS has already ruled that firearm ownership is an “individual right”, and court observers are saying that some of the justices (Thomas) are up for an even less-restrictive reading.... That “Shall not be infringed” should be literally that.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

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?

Mass shooting, as colloquially used, more often refers to rampage shootings rather than just any gun crime that has high bodycount.

The very first post in this thread was about a school shooting, not some parking lot shooting outside a seedy nightclub or gang related drive by.

The term "mass shooting" is an imprecise one, especially the way it is used in the media which are clearly referring to a very specific kind of "going postal" shooting, but that's the one often used in common parlance. Surely you are aware of this, I'm not sure why you're playing so easily into the "what about city gun violence" derail.

 

[Kestrel]

The King Soopers shooter’s family knew he had mental heath issues. Unfortunately they didn’t see him buying an assault weapon and playing with it as a bad sign. This tragedy may have been prevented if they had asked for a red flag order.

 

[Thermal]

Mass shooting, as colloquially used, more often refers to rampage shootings rather than just any gun crime that has high bodycount.

Yes, we all know that. If this was Twitter, then fine. As a specifically skeptical forum, is a grade school child's level of precision in thinking really such a high bar? Perhaps we should also talk about "machine guns" for sale at the Wal-Mart?

The very first post in this thread was about a school shooting, not some parking lot shooting outside a seedy nightclub or gang related drive by.

A distinction only in your mind. Exactly why wouldn't any other type of mass shooting fall under the same thread topic? Or perhaps only school shooters, if the OP is you're benchmark?

The term "mass shooting" is an imprecise one, especially the way it is used in the media which are clearly referring to a very specific kind of "going postal" shooting, but that's the one often used in common parlance. Surely you are aware of this, I'm not sure why you're playing so easily into the "what about city gun violence" derail.

As always, I am reacting to the fluidity of the posts, and addressing what others are posting. Perhaps you could criticize them as well? "Why is it always a white guy" and "it's not skin color, it's poverty" are challenge worthy, and should be, here.

My ultimate objection, as always, is the twittifying of this skeptical forum. Forum membership continues to decline, and this might well be due to potential/members not finding what they would expect of self-proclaimed skeptics. Instead, we shovel the same tripe as we see on FB. No bueno.

Skepticism will not always sound politically correct. Its just going to be real (in theory). And I think it is good in the big picture to discuss things removed from the political posturing and "colloquial" approach.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Yes, we all know that. If this was Twitter, then fine. As a specifically skeptical forum, is a grade school child's level of precision in thinking really such a high bar? Perhaps we should also talk about "machine guns" for sale at the Wal-Mart?



A distinction only in your mind. Exactly why wouldn't any other type of mass shooting fall under the same thread topic? Or perhaps only school shooters, if the OP is you're benchmark?



As always, I am reacting to the fluidity of the posts, and addressing what others are posting. Perhaps you could criticize them as well? "Why is it always a white guy" and "it's not skin color, it's poverty" are challenge worthy, and should be, here.

My ultimate objection, as always, is the twittifying of this skeptical forum. Forum membership continues to decline, and this might well be due to potential/members not finding what they would expect of self-proclaimed skeptics. Instead, we shovel the same tripe as we see on FB. No bueno.

Skepticism will not always sound politically correct. Its just going to be real (in theory). And I think it is good in the big picture to discuss things removed from the political posturing and "colloquial" approach.

It is generally understood that rampage shootings and everyday crime are different in kind, motivation, and impact. It seems especially pig headed to insist on discussing all "mass shootings" because that imprecise term was used in the OP, despite it being abundantly clear what was really meant to be the topic of conversation.

I also find the pearl clutching about being maligned as a racist a bit out of place if you're finding yourself in agreement with a poster who's content is hardly distinguishable from a white supremacist's "black crime" blotter.

Surely you are aware that using black crime as a red herring when discussing mass shootings is a common racist trope. Perhaps you should avoid doing so, or at least accept the earned stigma that come with such pointless tactics.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

The rather largish pachyderm in the room regarding “getting rid of the guns” is of course, the constitution.
It’s very difficult to imagine either repealing or drastically altering the 2nd Amendment at this point in history.
The SCOTUS has already ruled that firearm ownership is an “individual right”, and court observers are saying that some of the justices (Thomas) are up for an even less-restrictive reading.... That “Shall not be infringed” should be literally that.

A constitution and amendment written in the late 1700's, early 1800's when the US was surrounded by three potentially hostile colonial powers, at war with the native Americans and the wilderness was full of dangerous animals.
There was also a not unreasonable threat that a warlord could use an armed force to institute dictatorship.
And at a time when a local militia was the actual equal of armies because of weapon quality and supply lines.
Also arms at that time took ages to reload and were single shot.

Nowadays, the US has a nuclear arsenal that can wipe humanity off of the map in 24 hours, is bordered by two military allies, both of whom have armies that are not capable of being a threat, the native Americans have been near exterminated and what is left are part of the US, what is left of the wild animals needs to be actively protected to prevent extinction.
The US army has proven to be trustworthy and not interested in a coup and should it come to a war a local militia is barely a speed bump to a professional army.


I've never understood why something written 200+ years ago should hold the near mythical status it does, the situation has changed, why not update things to prevent the massive gun casualties caused by something clearly outdated and abusable?

 

[Thermal]

It is generally understood that rampage shootings and everyday crime are different in kind, motivation, and impact. It seems especially pig headed to insist on discussing all "mass shootings" because that imprecise term was used in the OP, despite it being abundantly clear what was really meant to be the topic of conversation.

Don't see why you insist that anything is abundantly clear. The topic seems to be ...Mass...Shootings. The OP was one type. There are many. I'm concerned more with all of them collectively, and the general problem of Americans shooting at groups of each other. You know, mass shootings. If you and others want to handwave away the vast majority of mass shootings, knock yourselves out, but start a dedicated thread with the restricted topic. Maybe put more thought into the title to reflect the smaller scope.

I also find the pearl clutching about being maligned as a racist a bit out of place if you're finding yourself in agreement with a poster who's content is hardly distinguishable from a white supremacist's "black crime" blotter.

Not true, and you are sharp enough to know that. I disagree strongly with that poster's subtextual argument, and have said so. That doesn't change the data. It changes the interpretation. I interpret it differently, especially WRT causes and solutions. Objecting to dishonest representations of my position is clean pool. I find paternal racism to be particularly dishonest and cowardly, two traits which I do so solemnly swear to get pushback from yours truly.

Surely you are aware that using black crime as a red herring when discussing mass shootings is a common racist trope. Perhaps you should avoid doing so, or at least accept the earned stigma that come with such pointless tactics.

Surely you are aware that data can be discussed without assuming unspoken agendas? My cards are on the table, as always. The wannabe mind readers can go play with themselves.

But yes, I am aware how often my position is counter-paternal racist, which is wrongly perceived as pro-racist. Which is pretty stupid. My starting assumption is that overt and paternal racists are more petty infighting within the wider group of "We believe black people to be inferior". One faction treats them as rodents, the other as beloved pets. I can't stand either way of thinking, but on this board, the latter is rampant and the former pretty scarce. My position, if you look at it, is never anti-black guy. Its anti-handwaving.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I've never understood why something written 200+ years ago should hold the near mythical status it does, the situation has changed, why not update things to prevent the massive gun casualties caused by something clearly outdated and abusable?

There is such a mechanism to change our laws, even dramatically.

The root political problem is that the type of gun control laws that are politically popular are too inconsequential to be effective, and the types of laws that would be effective are not popular.

Setting aside the 2A barrier (which can be overcome with enough support), the type of substantive gun laws that could make a dent in this kind of violence simply aren't popular enough. A law that wanted to severely restrict, or totally ban, private pistol ownership, or ban repeating rifles and shotguns, or otherwise criminalize all guns besides those that have very limited sporting use, would not be popular enough to pass.

 

[ahhell]

I've never understood why something written 200+ years ago should hold the near mythical status it does, the situation has changed, why not update things to prevent the massive gun casualties caused by something clearly outdated and abusable?

Its not about mythic power, its about legal power. The constitution is the supreme law of the US, and thus, other lesser law must comply with it to be legal. Unlike most other countries, the US is not founded on an ethnicity or the set of lands controlled by some king or other but on a set of principles and the constitution.

And what SuburbanTurkey just said.

Its worth noting that almost nobody, not even the most adamant originalists think the right to bear arms is absolute.

I say almost, only because its the internet and someone somewhere certainly believe every nutty thing.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Its not about mythic power, its about legal power. The constitution is the supreme law of the US, and thus, other lesser law must comply with it to be legal. Unlike most other countries, the US is not founded on an ethnicity or the set of lands controlled by some king or other but on a set of principles and the constitution.

And what SuburbanTurkey just said.

Its worth noting that almost nobody, not even the most adamant originalists think the right to bear arms is absolute.

I say almost, only because its the internet and someone somewhere certainly believe every nutty thing.

It has been in the Libertarian party platform.

 

[ahhell]

It has been in the Libertarian party platform.

Including such things as nukes and tanks and what not?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Including such things as nukes and tanks and what not?

You can buy a tank if you want.

 

[Lurch]

A constitution and amendment written in the late 1700's, early 1800's when the US was surrounded by three potentially hostile colonial powers, at war with the native Americans and the wilderness was full of dangerous animals.
There was also a not unreasonable threat that a warlord could use an armed force to institute dictatorship.
And at a time when a local militia was the actual equal of armies because of weapon quality and supply lines.
Also arms at that time took ages to reload and were single shot.

Nowadays, the US has a nuclear arsenal that can wipe humanity off of the map in 24 hours, is bordered by two military allies, both of whom have armies that are not capable of being a threat, the native Americans have been near exterminated and what is left are part of the US, what is left of the wild animals needs to be actively protected to prevent extinction.
The US army has proven to be trustworthy and not interested in a coup and should it come to a war a local militia is barely a speed bump to a professional army.


I've never understood why something written 200+ years ago should hold the near mythical status it does, the situation has changed, why not update things to prevent the massive gun casualties caused by something clearly outdated and abusable?

In full agreement on this.