Countdown to the next mass shooting

[GMDino]

(11-10-2017, 10:32 AM)GMDino Wrote: I do find it amusing how some (society, Americans, humans, whatever) can just accept that a certain number of people will die needlessly and shrug their shoulders and say there's no sense even talking about it.

When it comes to whatever they want to support, that is.

(11-10-2017, 02:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This thread is not about abortion. 

[Bengalzona]

(11-10-2017, 01:38 PM)PhilHos Wrote: First question: CAN something be done? We already have quite a few laws and regulations and procedures on the books to try to curb illegal gun use. The Texas shooting was perpetrated because someone didn't follow these laws/proecdures. 

Maybe the issue is that some people don't believe things can be done and those that do aren't proposing feasible solutions.

That is pretty much where I am coming from.

Can something be done?

Well, there is no known way right now to prevent all murderers from murdering. But I would see measures such as banning bump-stocks and gun restrictions based upon certain mental illnesses as feasible ways to reduce the damage one murderer can do and to cut down on some of the killings.

Would you agree?

[*PhilHos*]

(11-10-2017, 05:26 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: That is pretty much where I am coming from.

Can something be done?

Well, there is no known way right now to prevent all murderers from murdering. But I would see measures such as banning bump-stocks and gun restrictions based upon certain mental illnesses as feasible ways to reduce the damage one murderer can do and to cut down on some of the killings.

Would you agree?

I don't know anything about bump-stocks so I can't comment on that, but definitely restricting guns to people with certain mental illnesses should already be a thing.

[StLucieBengal]

(11-10-2017, 06:01 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I don't know anything about bump-stocks so I can't comment on that, but definitely restricting guns to people with certain mental illnesses should already be a thing.

Getting people off the street who are mentally ill should be a priority as well.

[treee]

(11-10-2017, 06:12 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Getting people off the street who are mentally ill should be a priority as well.

I'd take it one step further, and say making mental health treatment for all Americans a priority would go a long way towards reducing these types of incidents.

[StLucieBengal]

(11-10-2017, 06:24 PM)treee Wrote: I'd take it one step further, and say making mental health treatment for all Americans a priority would go a long way towards reducing these types of incidents.

The only problem would be that many are being treated with mental illness. Via prescription medication.

These are the people we need checked out.

I am all about small gov but we may need a state solution for mental illness. Bring back the sanitariums.

[treee]

(11-10-2017, 06:25 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The only problem would be that many are being treated with mental illness.  Via prescription medication.    

These are the people we need checked out.

I am all about small gov but we may need a state solution for mental illness.  Bring back the sanitariums.

Sanitariums definitely have their place for those who are exceeding at risk to themselves or another, but I don't think bringing them back en masse would be a cost effective or humanitarian way to treat most mental illness.

[BengalHawk62]

Here in Iowa, our former gov’nr had this bright idea to close most of the state hospitals that treat mental illnesses. Then our great potus sent him to China to be our foreign ambassador. So our new gov’nr has been following ol’ Braindead’s previous plan of closing these places that treat mental illnesses. Our states elected officials believe that if you ignore the mentally ill, they’ll just go away.

[Dill]

(11-09-2017, 10:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, gimme that rope baby, I need to pull a Caradine over here.
Good lord, and you accuse me of being obtuse.  Your inane point is that a bunch of deaths all in one event would spur the same kind of response, or at least make the analogy more appropriate.  My response is that people are well aware of the deaths related the to drug trade and yet it does nothing to curb the use of drugs.  What you're essentially saying is that without a mass death incident people don't care and the media doesn't report.  My counter is that people are aware and don't care enough to change.  The only people who clamour for gun control after a mass shooting are people who wanted gun control before the mass shooting.  Hence your analogy was flawed from the beginning.  Keep giving me that rope boy, I'm nearly there.

Yes, I addressed this above, your analogy is flawed.  

The words in caps nearly gave me enough rope, nearly.  I posited that this would have zero affect on people as the number of deaths is already well known and, as I stated, people like to get high.  I still posit this, lack of caps and all.

I can only guess that you lack the intellectual capacity to process the point being made.  Maybe you gave yourself too much rope?

So I say that there is plenty of outrage in response to the large number of alcohol related deaths/problems in the US, but these are not sufficiently aggregated in one spot to provoke the media response mass shootings do. And further, if they were so concentrated, we could expect the same level of media attention mas shootings get.

Someone who followed my argument and wanted to refute it would demonstrate 1) that there isn’t plenty of dis-aggregated outrage in response to alcohol-related deaths/problems.  (E.g., perhaps he could prove that when a drunk driver kills innocent people, the families of those people aren't outraged or don’t care because “people like to get drunk/high.”)

And 2) offer a credible counter-hypothetical to explain why a lot of alcohol-related deaths happening all at once, and with the regularity of mass shootings, would not trigger a media response comparable to those of mass shootings. If one drunk driver killed 50 people in 15 minutes in March and another killed 26, all children, in May, there would be only local coverage?

But your first off the wall response was the charge that all this outrage was “prohibition” (the Volstead Act, repealed in 1933?) and an “unmitigated disaster.” And my response is still LOL WHAT?????  

Then you drop in your claim people still buy illegal drugs, even though the drug trade involves homicides.  Homicides don’t stop the buyers. No one is disputing that claim. So in your mind, advantage SSF.  Somehow. But outside your mind, others want to know-- how does people continuing to buy illegal drugs refute a claim that there is plenty of outrage over alcohol abuse that is distributed around the US rather than concentrated in major incidents?

Then with the extra rope I gave you, you substituted my claim regarding plenty of outrage for a claim that there is no outrage. “What you're essentially saying is that without a mass death incident people don't care and the media doesn't report.”  Your “counter” to this claim I did not make is something like Neb’s original claim: “that people are aware and don't care enough to change.” 

Then comes the final, stupendous leap--“Hence,” somehow, my “analogy was flawed from the beginning” because  “The only people who clamour for gun control after a mass shooting are people who wanted gun control before the mass shooting.” That means people don’t care about alcohol-related problems? That national media would show no interest in a succession of alcohol-related mass death events?

The best I can make of this fog is that you are inserting unstated and unwarranted assumptions between my statements and your conclusions, because you certainly cannot reach those conclusions from what has so far been offered. The other possibility is you are simply responding to something that wasn’t stated; you are “countering” a claim that isn't there.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-10-2017, 07:19 PM)Dill Wrote: So I say that there is plenty of outrage in response to the large number of alcohol related deaths/problems in the US, but these are not sufficiently aggregated in one spot to provoke the media response mass shootings do. And further, if they were so concentrated, we could expect the same level of media attention mas shootings get.

Someone who followed my argument and wanted to refute it would demonstrate 1) that there isn’t plenty of dis-aggregated outrage in response to alcohol-related deaths/problems.  (E.g., perhaps he could prove that when a drunk driver kills innocent people, the families of those people aren't outraged or don’t care because “people like to get drunk/high.”)

And 2) offer a credible counter-hypothetical to explain why a lot of alcohol-related deaths happening all at once, and with the regularity of mass shootings, would not trigger a media response comparable to those of mass shootings. If one drunk driver killed 50 people in 15 minutes in March and another killed 26, all children, in May, there would be only local coverage?

But your first off the wall response was the charge that all this outrage was “prohibition” (the Volstead Act, repealed in 1933?) and an “unmitigated disaster.” And my response is still LOL WHAT?????  

Then you drop in your claim people still buy illegal drugs, even though the drug trade involves homicides.  Homicides don’t stop the buyers. No one is disputing that claim. So in your mind, advantage SSF.  Somehow. But outside your mind, others want to know-- how does people continuing to buy illegal drugs refute a claim that there is plenty of outrage over alcohol abuse that is distributed around the US rather than concentrated in major incidents?

Then with the extra rope I gave you, you substituted my claim regarding plenty of outrage for a claim that there is no outrage. “What you're essentially saying is that without a mass death incident people don't care and the media doesn't report.”  Your “counter” to this claim I did not make is something like Neb’s original claim: “that people are aware and don't care enough to change.” 

Then comes the final, stupendous leap--“Hence,” somehow, my “analogy was flawed from the beginning” because  “The only people who clamour for gun control after a mass shooting are people who wanted gun control before the mass shooting.” That means people don’t care about alcohol-related problems? That national media would show no interest in a succession of alcohol-related mass death events?

The best I can make of this fog is that you are inserting unstated and unwarranted assumptions between my statements and your conclusions, because you certainly cannot reach those conclusions from what has so far been offered. The other possibility is you are simply responding to something that wasn’t stated; you are “countering” a claim that isn't there.

This response is way too smart for my dumbass to comprehend, advantage Dill.

[Dill]

(11-10-2017, 07:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This response is way too smart for my dumbass to comprehend, advantage Dill.

Then I have met the bar you set for me in your original post. 

I'm guessing I've your permission to continue posting then.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-10-2017, 08:05 PM)Dill Wrote: Then I have met the bar you set for me in your original post.

If you say so. 

Quote:I'm guessing I've your permission to continue posting then.

No, please don't.  I don't know how much more condescension we can all deal with before we combust into the flame of shame.

[Dill]

(11-10-2017, 08:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, please don't.  I don't know how much more condescension we can all deal with before we combust into the flame of shame.

I was all set to let this go--until you deployed the royal "we," projecting your embarrassment onto everyone else in the thread.

But "we" did not cap an egregious misreading of my post #46 by setting ourselves up as the gatekeeper of informed opinion.

(11-09-2017, 12:58 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Talk about them all you want, just bring actual facts to the table instead of foisting your uninformed opinion on us.

And "we" didn't follow that bit of policing by your habitual, totally unnecessary put downs of other people's abilities.

(11-09-2017, 12:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Since the point flew a few miles over your head I'll explain further. . . .   If I have to explain even further I'll actually be disappointed in you.

 If you didn't have hyperbole your post count would be halved.

Again, point flew right over your head.  You're going to get a crick in your neck if you're not careful.

Did you go off your meds or something?

I can only guess that you lack the intellectual capacity to process the point being made.

I see no problem with vigorous prosecution of arguments focused on arguments and not persons. I don't have a problem with parody and sarcasm so long as directed at issues and political stances, not people. So no doubt I have ruffled other right wing feathers in this forum.

And no doubt, when you start from a position of condescension--the standard of informed opinion--you feel condescended to when someone demonstrates your claims are not so "informed" after all. 

But in this instance I very much doubt that some greater "WE" is set to combust into a flame of shame because I rolled a few LOLs into a dissection of YOUR misreading. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-13-2017, 12:43 PM)Dill Wrote: I was all set to let this go--until you deployed the royal "we," projecting your embarrassment onto everyone else in the thread.

But "we" did not cap an egregious misreading of my post #46 by setting ourselves up as the gatekeeper of informed opinion.

I'm not "the gatekeeper".  I am "a" gatekeeper.

Quote:And "we" didn't follow that bit of policing by your habitual, totally unnecessary put downs of other people's abilities.

I was all set to let this go, until you used the words, "other people's".  It was clearly directed solely at you.

Quote:I see no problem with vigorous prosecution of arguments focused on arguments and not persons. I don't have a problem with parody and sarcasm so long as directed at issues and political stances, not people. So no doubt I have ruffled other right wing feathers in this forum.

Other than mine you mean?  Two things; the next time you "ruffle my feathers" will be the first time and, two, I'm nothing close to right wing.

Quote:And no doubt, when you start from a position of condescension--the standard of informed opinion--you feel condescended to when someone demonstrates your claims are not so "informed" after all. 

Wait, was this past of your post a bit of self-reflection?

Quote:But in this instance I very much doubt that some greater "WE" is set to combust into a flame of shame because I rolled a few LOLs into a dissection of YOUR misreading. 

It's ok, we forgive you.

[CKwi88]

Did we ever decide on the definition of mass shooting? Apparently an elementary school just got shot up with 4 confirmed deaths.

[GMDino]

(11-14-2017, 04:10 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Did we ever decide on the definition of mass shooting? Apparently an elementary school just got shot up with 4 confirmed deaths.

Shhh. Can't talk about that yet.

[Bengalzona]

(11-08-2017, 10:42 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: Define "mass shooting".

Are we talking about the ones that make the news because a dozen people are killed?  Or are we talking about the situations where someone shoots 5 people who all live so it doesn't really make a big story outside of local news?

If it's the big one, it probably won't happen for several months (, but if you're talking about these smaller incidents, there's a decent chance that it's happened since this thread was created.

(11-14-2017, 04:10 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Did we ever decide on the definition of mass shooting? Apparently an elementary school just got shot up with 4 confirmed deaths.

No. Johnny asked earlier, but I never got to it.

I think 4 qualifies. What says the rest of you guys?

Although, I must say that only 10 days is pretty damn sad.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(11-14-2017, 06:36 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: No. Johnny asked earlier, but I never got to it.

I think 4 qualifies. What says the rest of you guys?

Although, I must say that only 10 days is pretty damn sad.

This isn't a "Mass Shooting", this is a "Killing Spree" so the countdown is still on.

[Dill]

(11-14-2017, 06:36 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: No. Johnny asked earlier, but I never got to it.

I think 4 qualifies. What says the rest of you guys?

Although, I must say that only 10 days is pretty damn sad.

According to the Congressional Research Service, in their report Mass Shootings in the US, we need four deaths, not including the shooter, and victims indiscriminately targeted. So a guy who killed his wife and two children and himself would not count.
 https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43004.pdf

In order to delineate a workable understanding of public mass shooting for this report, CRS
[i]examined scholarly journal articles, monographs, and government reports.12 These sources
discussed a variety of terms such as mass murder, mass shooting, mass killings, massacres, and
multiple homicide. Definitions of these terms varied with regard to establishing the number of
victims or fatalities involved, the weapons used, the motives of the perpetrator, and the
timeframes within which the casualties or injuries occurred.
This report defines public mass shootings as incidents occurring in relatively public places,
[i]involving four or more deaths—not including the shooter(s)—and gunmen who select victims
somewhat indiscriminately. The violence in these cases is not a means to an end such as robbery
or terrorism.13


If people accept a guvmint standard, then today's incident could be a mass shooting if the 4-5 dead don't include the shooter himself (killed by police) and family members.

Let's wait till it sorts out because I don't want my guess about the time interval to be wrong.
 

[Bengalzona]

(11-14-2017, 06:51 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: This isn't a "Mass Shooting", this is a "Killing Spree" so the countdown is still on.

People still call them "killing sprees"?