Today's Mass Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Now you've done it.

You used the term 'assault weapons'.

Now the thread can be diverted in to there being no such thing and get bogged down in the semantics of gun nomenclature which, if you get slightly wrong means your opinions are invalid.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Now you've done it.

You used the term 'assault weapons'.

Now the thread can be diverted in to there being no such thing and get bogged down in the semantics of gun nomenclature which, if you get slightly wrong means your opinions are invalid.
Click to expand...

Assault weapon is actually correct. That's the political term for guns which differ from hunting rifles only in cosmetic features.
Assault rifle would be wrong. That's military term for full auto rifle using intermediate cartridge, which these are not. Washington post got it wrong this time (together with mentioning a 'clip', another evergreen). And yeah, it's not big deal really.
But I'm afraid it will be brought up every time people get it wrong. After all, the potential law change should have it right.
 
Meadmaker said:
There were a couple of wounded as well, so it's back on the list.


Or, I might be getting it confused with one in Wisconsin with 3 dead and 2 wounded.

ETA: I looked it up. The Austin shooting had 3 dead, no injuries. So it is not a mass shooting at all. Maybe we should report the post for being off topic. In Kenosha, there were 3 dead and 2 wounded, so it's a mass shooting.
Click to expand...
I think we also need to count corner kicks and field goals.

/snark
 
CaptainHowdy said:
Be quiet! This one doesn't fit the narrative.
Click to expand...

Why because the suspect is black?

"Stop racism" and "Stop murdering people in mass shootings." Yep you totally caught the libs in a paradox there. Wrap it up murder is okay again.

*Wack off motion*
 
Norman Alexander said:
Peh. Only three? Not an "official mass shooting", then?
Click to expand...

CaptainHowdy said:
Be quiet! This one doesn't fit the narrative.
Click to expand...

What narrative?

In any case, this is why I think the mass shooting designation doesn't work if we want to understand the Real True Motives of the rampage attacks that we typically think of when the term is used. Limiting it to a number of victims isn't helpful.

I'm not sure what's going on with the Austin shooting but it looks like a "regular" multiple murder incident until we get more info.
 
Dr.Sid said:
Assault weapon is actually correct. That's the political term for guns which differ from hunting rifles only in cosmetic features.
Assault rifle would be wrong. That's military term for full auto rifle using intermediate cartridge, which these are not. Washington post got it wrong this time (together with mentioning a 'clip', another evergreen). And yeah, it's not big deal really.
But I'm afraid it will be brought up every time people get it wrong. After all, the potential law change should have it right.
Click to expand...

Yayy! See what I mean?
 
Norman Alexander said:
Peh. Only three? Not an "official mass shooting", then?
Click to expand...
The FBI defines a mass shooting as three or more people.

Wikipedia said:
A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence. There is no widely accepted definition of the term mass shooting. The United States' FBI follows the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012 definition for active shooter incidents and mass killings (defined by the law as three or more people) in public places. Based on this, it is generally agreed that a mass shooting is whenever three or more people are shot (injured or killed), not including the shooters.[1]
Click to expand...
 
Meadmaker said:
There were a couple of wounded as well, so it's back on the list.


Or, I might be getting it confused with one in Wisconsin with 3 dead and 2 wounded.

ETA: I looked it up. The Austin shooting had 3 dead, no injuries. So it is not a mass shooting at all. Maybe we should report the post for being off topic. In Kenosha, there were 3 dead and 2 wounded, so it's a mass shooting.
Click to expand...
April 18: Kenosha, Wisconsin
Three people were killed and three others wounded in a shooting at The Somers House tavern in Kenosha County, Wisconsin.

April 17: Columbus, Ohio
A shooting at a vigil in Columbus, Ohio, left one dead and five others -- including a 12-year-old child -- wounded.

April 16: Detroit
Four people were wounded in a shooting during a vigil on Detroit's east side when an unknown person fired into the crowd.

April 15: Indianapolis
Eight people were killed and several others wounded in a mass shooting at an Indianapolis FedEx facility.

April 15: Pensacola, Florida
At least six people were injured at an Escambia County apartment complex.

April 15: Washington, DC
Four people were shot, including a teenage girl, in Northeast Washington DC.

April 13: Baltimore
Police said a dice game turned violent when two people opened fire on a group, wounding four.

April 12: Chicago
Four people were shot, one fatally, and a fifth person was hit by a car in a shooting just after midnight on the Eisenhower Expressway.

A week in America. :rolleyes:
 
So far this year the USA has suffered 152 mass shootings with 181 dead and 605 injured (excluding shooters).

Ah, freedom. :rolleyes:
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
That's the attitude I'll never understand.
A former co-worker took out his grudges against the company by getting a gun and shooting people and the reaction is: "Lets make sure the next one will have his/her gun already in place so they don't have to go home to get one once they snap"
Click to expand...

To be fair he did have his shotgun removed from his possession by the police, but nothing to prevent him buying more guns to clear out his work place.
 
ponderingturtle said:
To be fair he did have his shotgun removed from his possession by the police, but nothing to prevent him buying more guns to clear out his work place.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I read that, I just meant that if everyone brought their weapons with them to work they would not have to go home to get a gun to kill their co-workers but could conveniently just pull their guns out of their drawers and start shooting when they feel down.
 
dudalb said:
I despaire that the whole gun discussion is domnated by the extremists on both sidea.
Click to expand...

Do you think so?

I don't think that the "left side" is very extremist in this case. What I mean is that the two main camps seem to be:

Right side: Very close to zero restrictions on firearms at all. Anything that isn't a machine gun or above can be owned. Licensing should not be required, or at the very least should be trivially easy, and permission to carry weapons should be given to almost anyone without a history of gun related crime, so that there's always a good guy with a gun available.

Left side: Licenses should be required. Carry permits should be rare. Guns that can fire lots of bullets very, very fast, should be severely restricted, basically outlawed for most people. (i.e. "assault weapons ban")

I think that's the dominant position on the left side, and it doesn't seem extreme to me.

There's another position

Extreme left: Guns should be outlawed for most people.

That's what I think of extreme, and yes there are people who believe it, but I don't think they are dominant on the pro-gun control side. On the right side, though, I think what I've described is the dominant position, and I would call it extremist because if you go any further than that, you just get all the way to just plain stupid. Yes, there are people more extreme, but those are the people who are certain that there is a constitutional right to hand grenades and machine guns.....which is just stupid.
 
My opinion on guns is... complicated.

I don't disagree with (American style lest we have the "bUt in uDDer CounTRIES dE AMERIAcan LEFt woULD be on Da RIGHt!" discussion again for no reason) liberals for the most part.

My issue is when they say "Oh no we don't want to ban gun"... I don't believe them. I think they are lying.

They can say "Oh we just want to outlaw assault weapons, or do background checks, or this, or that" all day but I don't think that's really their end goal.

Hairsplits as to what point something is "outlawed" aside I don't think there is a viable level of anything resembling American style gun ownership that they are comfortable with.

Which is fine if that's what they want, I just wish they would admit it.
 
Last edited:
Ian Osborne said:
That's how it is in the UK, and we're definitely a right-wing country. When was our last mass shooting again?
Click to expand...

They are not 'outlawed' as such. Certain types are extremely restricted (pistols and rifles that are select fire or semi auto other than .22lr) other types you have to demonstrate a reason to own one.
Shotguns are different, you don't need to have a reason to own one but you still have to satisfy the local police firearms officer that you are a fit person to own one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom