Mass Shootings, Guns, and the US

reply to post by freethinker123


Thats a fair distinction, but how do we discern between murderous rampages, serial killers, terrorism, and genocides?

I mean, the Nazis didn't always use guns, they used lots of creative ways for mass murder. People use cars for mass murders and casualties. Of course we know they use explosives. Airplanes, poisons, etc.

I remember the Chicago Tylenol Murders from when I was a kid, and we are still reeling from it today! It changed the way every product in the nation was manufactured and packaged.

So, I see you wanting to funnel it down and show that only guns are responsible for mass killing sprees, but I just don't see how we could separate all the different types of mass murders that way in a fair manner?

The fact is, people with guns are safer than people without guns. At the movie theatre in Colorado last night, all the people with guns are still alive. The assailant and the police all survived. The unarmed people are dead and wounded.

reply to post by getreadyalready


In the case of Charlie Manson I think the drug excuse may be valid. There are some people that believe Manson was given the mythical, "second half" of the '___' treatment to extend his trip for life.

Originally posted by Cygnis

Originally posted by freethinker123
Think you understood my point though, legal or not, its hell of a lot easier taking a gun from my uncle's drawer.

And if you use that gun, and it gets traced back to your uncle, your uncle will possibly face legal charges as well.

Not only that, but that is improper gun storage, imo.

Mine is either with me, or in the safe. locked up. No other proper way to do it. Especially if there are children around.

Nope, not in the Ohio school mass shooting from a few months back. Many states have lax attitude towards gun storage and no charges are pressed, but yes I agree its improper gun storage. I'm not saying you or most gun owners are irresponsible by the way, most are responsible. However, it is a fact that some are not and it could well be easier for a whacko to get a gun from these irresponsible types than it is for them to go to some dangerous hood to find one.

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by FortAnthem


The first thing I thought when I read about this is; isn't Colorado a pretty liberal concealed carry state? Where were the people carrying when this happened? Why didn't even one patron in that theater have a gun?

One person carrying could have stopped this situation in its tracks. Its a shame more people don't exercise their right to self defense.

The guy was suited up in body armor and had tear gas. Trying to take him on with a handgun would not have been a good idea.

so you suggest doing nothing, except getting shot, and killed?
brilliant!!!

body armor does not make you immune to lead moving at 2000 feet per second.

i propose a gun ownership mandate.
or pay a tax.
hows that sound lefties?

Originally posted by TechUnique

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Just googling "massacres over the last 20 years" there are a LOT of terribly sad stories, and they are definitely not all guns, and they definitely occur in areas with strict gun control.

It was 20 years ago today, December 6, 1989 that Marc Lépine walked into École Polytechnique in Montreal with one intent - to kill women. That day he succeeded in killing the 14 women named above and today we remember them

Source

Political kidnapping and massacre of 58 for opposing Mayor in the Phillipines.

New Zealand mass shooting

I think there are more of these things than I care to read. It is a very disturbing subject.

I really worry about you guys in the states. The amount of guns knocking about and how crazy people are getting nowadays could be a bad combo. That being said I would NEVER advocate disarmament.

I'm glad at least that you don't advocate diarmament. The thing that scares me more is a populace falling prey to what you don't advocate under the guise of safety that is based on false premises.

I fear that more than anything right now, because I doubt anything else will allow our right to bear arms to actually be stripped. Even the smallest attempt at confiscation of any type I fear would result in revolution and I can't imagine anyone wanting that to happen on the scale that I fear it would...

Jaden

Originally posted by bjax9er

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by FortAnthem


The first thing I thought when I read about this is; isn't Colorado a pretty liberal concealed carry state? Where were the people carrying when this happened? Why didn't even one patron in that theater have a gun?

One person carrying could have stopped this situation in its tracks. Its a shame more people don't exercise their right to self defense.

The guy was suited up in body armor and had tear gas. Trying to take him on with a handgun would not have been a good idea.

so you suggest doing nothing, except getting shot, and killed?
brilliant!!!

body armor does not make you immune to lead moving at 2000 feet per second.

i propose a gun ownership mandate.
or pay a tax.
hows that sound lefties?

edit on 20-7-2012 by bjax9er because: add

There are only two laws that I advocate in relations to firearms. Mandatory firearms safety training for anyone over the age of 12 and Mandatory civilian combat training for anyone wishing to publicly carry, whether it be open carry or concealed carry.

I actually believe more in open carry than concealed. It makes it safer for police because they know who is armed. Doesn't give them the authority to accost them, harass them or confiscate their property (even temporarily) but it gives them the ability to remain cautious, or to know who to call on under posse commutatus.

Remember, it is the responsibility of every able bodied man over the age of either 21, or 25 I think it was changed from the original, to protect the safety of every other citizen, to protect their rights and to assist law officers in a time of need enforcing the law.

Jaden

Originally posted by Cygnis

Originally posted by freethinker123
Think you understood my point though, legal or not, its hell of a lot easier taking a gun from my uncle's drawer.

And if you use that gun, and it gets traced back to your uncle, your uncle will possibly face legal charges as well.

Not only that, but that is improper gun storage, imo.

Mine is either with me, or in the safe. locked up. No other proper way to do it. Especially if there are children around.

Mine are not locked at all in my house. im a single guy who lives alone. Ive done a bit of research on gun safes, and anything under 2000 dollars or so would be easier to break into than the house its in so ummm..... Infact i have one hanging on my wall in my living room.

reply to post by Masterjaden


Open carry freaks people out though and gives you an upper hand in arguments. Criminals gonna conceal anyway. The local police department knows im packin anyway, if i show up they assume im registering a gun LMAO

reply to post by bjax9er


About 10 years ago several of the suburbs of chicago actually passed laws that required gun ownership. This was in retaliation to other suburbs that banned guns. guess who had lower crime?

reply to post by getreadyalready


Its really not that hard to distinguish rampage killings from genocide, they are completely seperate categories. There is no need to muddy the waters by adding category after category. I think it would be fair to include all mass killings in the category though as well as gun killings - although I suspect you know that such statistics would not help your argument as it would only show that the large majority of mass killings are carried out with guns. I don't know what you mean by a 'fair' manner. Fairness doesn't come into it, its about preventing the deaths of innocents - these people have the right to live. What I'm referring to here is to reduce the chances of crazies being able to kill and if that can't be stopped, then hell, to reduce the number of people killed by said crazy. That is my only 'agenda', I'm not interested in supporting a lobby or political party - although I note that many people in this debate could not care less about victims.

Our context / subject is a mass shooting and that is the category to look at. Those who carry out these type of crimes have a psychological profile with things in common.

All of those who were seriously addicted to tobacco survived last night, as such they would have been outside the cinema smoking. All the non addicts in the cinema were injured or killed. People are safer being addicted to tobacco... No seriously, your argument is almost as weak as the one I have just put. Let me put together a much more logical and solid argument, rather than cause a shoot out at the ok coral, don't you think it would be better if there had been a metal detector at the cinema?
As an ordinary visitor to the cinema with your family and children with you, would you rather that nobody starts shooting in the first place, or would you prefer that you can shoot back?

As the saying goes prevention is better than cure...

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by antonia

 

I disagree. You might not have won, might have even been killed, but how many would have escaped and survived while you distracted him?

Unless you can conceal a shotgun in your pants you are wasting your time. You could have jumped on him to cause a distraction too.

The points you are trying to make are based on a poorly informed belief that body armor totally prevents harm to the body. It does not. Even when you are wearing most body armor, being shot with a large caliber weapon can and will cause serious injury. The only armor that will allow you to stand there and take multiple shots is massively heavy and not available to the general public. Then there is also the matter of armor piercing rounds, which can penetrate body armor quite easily.

To make the statement that jumping on this gunman would be just as effective as unloading a full clip of .45 caliber, armor piercing rounds into his body is, to put it as nicely as I can, absolutely stupid of you. It is just the kind of tripe I expect from anti-gun people who are almost always completely uneducated in the specifics and actual mechanics of firearms.

This is a great thread, and just shows you how much influence the mass media holds over the minds of people around the world. I can remember news stories from many of the incidents that occured in other countries, yet most people will make statements like, "this sort of thing only happens in the USA" when it is simply false.

reply to post by freethinker123


I understand your argument, but I have to ask something. Where, in this case, would you have placed this metal detector? At the front of the theater? If so, it would have done nothing, because the gunman brought the firearms through the fire exit of the theater. Do you want metal detector there as well?

My point is this; completely securing a building is extremely difficult, and a determined individual will generally be able to find a weak point in that security. Having the level of security needed to keep firearms out of a place like a theater would not be cost effective. Doing so for every building in every city...well, you figure out how to do that and then come talk to me. We could make a lot of money.

reply to post by network dude


These things have always happened, Amerian history is full of it.

The cowboys running into towns and shooting them up. Those people were not any less terrorized, and we idolize outlaws today.

the Mafia. it drives me crazy that people idolize the Mafia. They have done horrible things.

The Meadow Mountain Massacre~ the Original 911

Long list of Native Amerian massacres

People should be careful about knee-jerk reactions to this sort of thing...

The facts are this has always happened - even before we had guns there was a long list of historical massacres

It is a very unfortunate part of this existence and human nature that there are some very sick bad apples in the group

Not much can be done about it except taking mental illness seriously by offering counseling & treatment for potential problem children & adults and allowing people to defend themselves so these sort of rampages can hopefully be cut short

Originally posted by TechUnique

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Just googling "massacres over the last 20 years" there are a LOT of terribly sad stories, and they are definitely not all guns, and they definitely occur in areas with strict gun control.

It was 20 years ago today, December 6, 1989 that Marc Lépine walked into École Polytechnique in Montreal with one intent - to kill women. That day he succeeded in killing the 14 women named above and today we remember them

Source

Political kidnapping and massacre of 58 for opposing Mayor in the Phillipines.

New Zealand mass shooting

I think there are more of these things than I care to read. It is a very disturbing subject.

I really worry about you guys in the states. The amount of guns knocking about and how crazy people are getting nowadays could be a bad combo. That being said I would NEVER advocate disarmament.

Wouldn't be a problem if we didn't need to pay for licences and permits to open or conceal carry. Criminals are always going to have their guns because of the Black Market. Taking away the right to bear arms would just leave innocent civilians more vulnerable than we are now. Fed's just want to make money by requiring people to be licensed to carry even though it's not constitutional. I guarantee you if we were all packing heat, some fool storming into a Batman premiere pretending to be the joker would be dead as a doornail before he got the first shot off and then he gets to explain to God why he had murder in his heart, to harm others.

Originally posted by network dude
I feel that the whole video gaming craze has at least a tiny bit to do with all this. The value of a life has been diminished. I hate to sound like an old person ranting about how things were in my day, but damn, in my childhood, these things just didn't happen. Guns were still just as popular, but War was not an everyday occurring thing, and the most violence you dealt with was on cartoons. (come to think of it, The Road runner stuff was a bit violent)

Kids fought with fists and nobody had to die over stupid stuff. I guess I am just getting old.

You lived in a sheltered age.

Just prior to that period, the US was in a Civil War, and Americans were burning down each other's houses and killing each other right and left.

I would rather live in today's world where only a few mass killings happen here or there...than live in the world of history where mass killings littered the whole place.

Statistically speaking, violence levels are at an all time low.

Originally posted by coldkidc
People should be careful about knee-jerk reactions to this sort of thing...

The facts are this has always happened - even before we had guns there was a long list of historical massacres

It is a very unfortunate part of this existence and human nature that there are some very sick bad apples in the group

Not much can be done about it except taking mental illness seriously by offering counseling & treatment for potential problem children & adults and allowing people to defend themselves so these sort of rampages can hopefully be cut short

Agreed. We need to help our fellow man.
Through education we can mitigate the problem step by step.

We need to find those individuals who feel they have nothing to lose, and show them they have a lot to lose.
Although it's true many are completely lost at this point, I believe it may be best to focus on the younger generations and attempt to give them the skills they need to avoid tragedies and horrible mistakes.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by TechUnique

 

I think the economy is much more dangerous than the amount of guns.

If we just assumed every person was armed, then how much more polite would society be?

Interesting notion, but do you not also think that this only works on the basis that common sense rules - which unfortunately it doesnt?

Surely you would end up with gun fights over every persons perceived notion of appropriate morals being broken - how 'threatened' would you need to be to use it? Have a weapon pulled on you...be verbally insulted...be looked at the wrong way?

Originally posted by Realtruth
I think that this is something we need to look at closely, since people bash the USA so hard on these events.

What do people say when an event happens in their country and guns were not allowed?

Exactly!! Everyone is going crazy about gun laws again but gun laws have nothing to do with it. It wasn't the GUN that made the DECISION to go kill a bunch of people. It was the individual. Plus, if someone wants to kill a bunch of people they could easily do so with a grenade (homemade). I personally know how to make many homemade weapons but do I go and kill a whole bunch of people?? No. Simply, it all has to do with an individual and how they grew up. Did they watch a lot of violent movies? Were they made fun of often? Did they play many violent video games and were they MOTIVATED by them. Not to mention, it is so easy to find out how to make homemade weapons on the internet, it is no surprise you are having mass killings and other horrific events going on. Honestly, those who want all these gun laws and weapon laws, go live in Russia if you want that. YOU live in the US and these are a few of the issues we have to deal with so either deal with it and come up with better ways of fixing these issues or do what I said and go live in Russia!

Originally posted by ComeFindMe

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by TechUnique

 

Interesting notion, but do you not also think that this only works on the basis that common sense rules - which unfortunately it doesnt?

Surely you would end up with gun fights over every persons perceived notion of appropriate morals being broken - how 'threatened' would you need to be to use it? Have a weapon pulled on you...be verbally insulted...be looked at the wrong way?

That is false. Actually, people WOULD be LESS likely to be violent if everyone assumed everyone had a gun because then they wouldn't want to risk getting killed just because they dislike someone or their opinions.