Another mass shooting...

[*michaelsean*]

(10-02-2015, 11:20 AM)Au165 Wrote: Mental health institutions are great, and we should have more, but that won't stop people who show no outward signs or don't have people who can get them to go to these institutions. Thats was kind of my point from earlier, it needs to be a thought out plan attacking the issue from multiple fronts, not just the usual one size fits all approach people want to bang on after these things happen.

I'll bet most show outward signs to people who know them.  

[Au165]

(10-02-2015, 11:24 AM)Ryuko Wrote: Also from the CDC... 88,000 alcohol-related deaths per year. Weird that I never see anyone getting on their soapbox to rally for prohibition... And heart disease is the #1 killer in America. Where are the protesters outside McDonalds? "Fast food is child abuse!" makes for a pretty catchy picket sign. 

No takers? Ok. Back to your regularly scheduled programming of people who believe that outlawing guns means people won't have them. That's why no one in the US had pot before 2012, and why cocaine doesn't exist within our borders. Strange no one has thought to outlaw murder... Then no one would kill anybody with anything, right?

That's actually false, You ever hear of MADD? The reason there are rallies is because those guns are used to kill peoples loved ones. Many of the alcohol related deaths are done to themselves, however when they do effect others (See drunk driving) there is outrage and people do demand change (see the lowering BAC levels).

I don't know that anyone in this thread has mentioned outlawing guns as a viable, or even good option. The problem is it's not an all or nothing situation. Just because some sort of regulation or process doesn't end all gun violence doesn't mean there shouldn't be an effort made to reduce it.

[GMDino]

(10-02-2015, 11:12 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I don't see the point of having any gun free zones.     It's a nice thought until someone brings a gun ready to kill.  

I still think firearm basics and education being a mandatory class with additional electives in schools is the best course of action.

I read this latest one was not a gun free zone....

[Au165]

(10-02-2015, 11:57 AM)GMDino Wrote: I read this latest one was not a gun free zone....

Yea the gun free zone argument is stupid. Sure it is a farce (not keeping bad guys out), but there are places guns shouldn't be for everyone's safety, like anywhere alcohol is served.

[SteelCitySouth]

(10-02-2015, 11:57 AM)GMDino Wrote: I read this latest one was not a gun free zone....

It was not a gun free zone.

[*Nately120*]

Call me a cynic, but it seems like living in the USA and complaining about mass shootings is like living in Canada and complaining about the cold. It just seems to come with the territory, so live with it or move. Meh, that's pretty pessimistic.

[Belsnickel]

(10-02-2015, 11:57 AM)GMDino Wrote: I read this latest one was not a gun free zone....

(10-02-2015, 12:37 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: It was not a gun free zone.

Yeah, Inside Higher Ed had an article about it. Oregon is one of 9 (IIRC) states that allow concealed carry on campuses.

[Au165]

(10-02-2015, 12:44 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Call me a cynic, but it seems like living in the USA and complaining about mass shootings is like living in Canada and complaining about the cold.  It just seems to come with the territory, so live with it or move.  Meh, that's pretty pessimistic.

wha whaaaat?

[djs7685]

(10-02-2015, 12:44 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Call me a cynic, but it seems like living in the USA and complaining about mass shootings is like living in Canada and complaining about the cold.  It just seems to come with the territory, so live with it or move.  Meh, that's pretty pessimistic.

Okay, Lucie!

Seriously though, I used to love gun debates. Then my friends and I realized that we would have an almost identical debate after any sort of national news story that involved gun violence. Since then, I've stopped talking about guns after having the same exact argument about 20 times without anyone budging on their stance. I know that can be said with many other topics as well, but gun control seems to only have a few logical points on both sides and a lot of people need to just say "hey, I like guns" or "hey, I don't really like guns".

Something needs to be done to stop the violence, but I can't say that I know what will stop it. I believe you've mentioned it in the past,  but throwing our hands in the air and giving up on even trying definitely isn't the answer.

[Ryuko]

(10-02-2015, 11:56 AM)Au165 Wrote: That's actually false, You ever hear of MADD? The reason there are rallies is because those guns are used to kill peoples loved ones. Many of the alcohol related deaths are done to themselves, however when they do effect others (See drunk driving) there is outrage and people do demand change (see the lowering BAC levels).

I don't know that anyone in this thread has mentioned outlawing guns as a viable, or even good option. The problem is it's not an all or nothing situation. Just because some sort of regulation or process doesn't end all gun violence doesn't mean there shouldn't be an effort made to reduce it.

Really? Literally the third post. Unless they were talking about some other "legislation". 

People may not be saying it outright (because it's an impossible stance to defend), but they certainly have no qualms pointing suggestively at it before saying "That's not what I meant!" and trailing off with vague generalities like "some sort of regulation or process" or "effort made".

As for your MADD point, many of the "gun related deaths" listed previously include suicides. If suicide by alcohol doesn't count, you can't count suicides as gun violence, either. And they still don't come close to advocating for prohibition the way that anti-gun groups advocate a virtual lockdown of gun shops (and then pretend they don't).

[djs7685]

(10-02-2015, 12:51 PM)Ryuko Wrote: People may not be saying it outright (because it's an impossible stance to defend), but they certainly have no qualms pointing suggestively at it before saying "That's not what I meant!" and trailing off with vague generalities like "some sort of regulation or process" or "effort made".

Well, no. Most people DO believe there should be some/more regulation, but realize that it would be ridiculous to suggest banning them all together. I've honestly never heard anyone trying to have a legitimate discussion say that we should ban 100% of guns.

People may not be saying it outright because it's not how they feel, have you ever thought about that?

[Au165]

(10-02-2015, 12:51 PM)Ryuko Wrote: Really? Literally the third post. Unless they were talking about some other "legislation". 

People may not be saying it outright (because it's an impossible stance to defend), but they certainly have no qualms pointing suggestively at it before saying "That's not what I meant!" and trailing off with vague generalities like "some sort of regulation or process" or "effort made".

As for your MADD point, many of the "gun related deaths" listed previously include suicides. If suicide by alcohol doesn't count, you can't count suicides as gun violence, either. And they still don't come close to advocating for prohibition the way that anti-gun groups advocate a virtual lockdown of gun shops (and then pretend they don't).

The third post down was mine, I was pointing out the far left and far right arguments for dealing it are not the solutions. Not sure where you could draw that I was saying ban guns.

See post above on this.

The list does include suicide, so lets correct it and cut it in half (somewhat of an estimate). Does 150k not still matter? That seems like something we as a society should work to cut down.

[*Nately120*]

(10-02-2015, 12:50 PM)djs7685 Wrote: Something needs to be done to stop the violence, but I can't say that I know what will stop it. I believe you've mentioned it in the past,  but throwing our hands in the air and giving up on even trying definitely isn't the answer.

Yeah, I think I'm changing my mind.  Not so much because I have no faith in there being a solution so much as I've given up on America's desire to actually find it.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(10-02-2015, 01:01 PM)Au165 Wrote: The third post down was mine, I was pointing out the far left and far right arguments for dealing it are not the solutions. Not sure where you could draw that I was saying ban guns.

See post above on this.

The list does include suicide, so lets correct it and cut it in half (somewhat of an estimate). Does 150k not still matter? That seems like something we as a society should work to cut down.

How many of those 150K could be prevented if we cut out the drug war and did a lot to stop gang violence?

[RoyleRedlegs]

(10-02-2015, 10:34 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think the way our media covers it all has a lot to do with it, for sure. They perpetuate the problem to no end.



Yeah, I saw something about this, too. Of course, one could argue that some of the mass shootings were acts of domestic terrorism.

Well in this most recent case, if it turns out to be true that the shoot was asking people if they were Christian or not then if they said yes he would shoot them in the head and if they said no he would shoot them in the leg, not the very definition of terrorism? 

[Belsnickel]

(10-02-2015, 01:21 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Well in this most recent case, if it turns out to be true that the shoot was asking people if they were Christian or not then if they said yes he would shoot them in the head and if they said no he would shoot them in the leg, not the very definition of terrorism? 

I don't know, really. Here is the FBI definition of terrorism:
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

Quote:18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
• Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*
  

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
• Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
  

18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

• Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
• Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930© (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).
  

It leaves it to be very subjective. I would argue that any mass shooting intends to intimidate a civilian population, but that's just me.

[BmorePat87]

shooter sounds like a certifiable weirdo. 26 years old, lived in a 1 bedroom apt with his mom, she was very protective of him, he always wore the same clothes (white shirt, green army pants, combat boots), had an obsession with the IRA and weapons...



Maybe we push this whole mental health stuff and get people like this help.

[*bengalfan74*]

(10-02-2015, 11:20 AM)Au165 Wrote: Mental health institutions are great, and we should have more, but that won't stop people who show no outward signs or don't have people who can get them to go to these institutions. Thats was kind of my point from earlier, it needs to be a thought out plan attacking the issue from multiple fronts, not just the usual one size fits all approach people want to bang on after these things happen.

I don't have the numbers in front of me but I'm sure the number killed on major city streets in mostly the drug wars dwarfs the total killed in mass shootings.

And going along with your approach from multiple fronts I feel a major change should be the way the media covers these tragedies. Is infamy the only reason these things happen ? No, but I do feel it's a big factor. Like someone else said above the copycat syndrome is part of it as well.

Simply writing more gun laws will solve nothing. We need to totally rethink how, what, when, etc. these things are handled and take a different approach.

[Belsnickel]

Just for the fun of it, let's talk about this guy: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/oregon-college-shooting/oregon-shooting-heroic-veteran-chris-mintz-was-shot-7-times-n437291?cid=sm_fb

I'd rather talk about someone doing some heroic shit like this than the douche that did the shooting.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(10-02-2015, 01:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't know, really. Here is the FBI definition of terrorism:
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition



It leaves it to be very subjective. I would argue that any mass shooting intends to intimidate a civilian population, but that's just me.

It is subjective. But given the basic definitions of terrorism, his apparent obsession with religion and the IRA.....hard to say it isn't terrorism

(10-02-2015, 01:32 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: shooter sounds like a certifiable weirdo. 26 years old, lived in a 1 bedroom apt with his mom, she was very protective of him, he always wore the same clothes (white shirt, green army pants, combat boots), had an obsession with the IRA and weapons...



Maybe we push this whole mental health stuff and get people like this help.

Between that and ending the drug war, we could probably do a lot of good in ending gun violence.