Perspective on mass shootings

Status
Not open for further replies.
Another problem is that when there are clear indications, universities have cover-up or liability management emphasis. So instead, we just test everyone?

Bah.
 
I'm going to play Red Team or Devil's Advocate.
Click to expand...

Me too...

Here were the weapons used in the massacre -
Remington 700 ADL with 4x Scope (6mm)
M1 Carbine
Remington M141 (.35-caliber)
Sears semi-automatic shotgun, sawed down (12 gauge)
S&W M19 (.357 Magnum)
Luger P08 (9mm)
Galesi-Brescia (.25 ACP)
Click to expand...

Okay, when you send your letter to your representatives, try not to present information as fact when it isn't. For example, how many shots were fired with the M19, Luger and the Galesi-Brescia? Who did he point them at? Yes, he had them, but there is a difference in having a weapon and using a weapon.

He also had a Nsceo machette in a green scabbard, but you failed to mention it or the Camallus hunting knife, Randall knife, pocket knife, etc., but he had and didn't use any of these "weapons." So when you talk about the "weapons" being used by Whitman, you need to be absolutely specific. Mixing used and present and then being incomplete in what you call being "used" is inaccurate.

Now he may have used any or all of the pistols, but I don't find in the accounts that he did. Maybe you have some better insight, but I know he didn't "use" most of his knives as "weapons." In fact, I don't think he used any. He apparently used at least one as a food/dining tool, but not as a weapon.

If I am your representative or maybe the staff member who reads your letter and it is written as it is now, then I will likely round file your letter because you are making a point with information that isn't accurate or isn't presented accurately. If somebody who reads it knows what you are talking about or takes the time to check your facts, they will likely do the same thing, or dead file it. Why? The office is more than busy enough with other matters than to be doing all the fact checking and argument building to make your stated case a credible argument when you haven't taken the time to do that yourself.
 
The bottom line for me is that people who don't agree with us won't be swayed by arguments about the value of the 19-rd mags I got with my XDm-9 or that ammo can be piled up with small purchases over a few weeks time rather than all at once online ... It's obvious to me that insanity is involved in virtually all mass shootings; in what world does a sane person a. have the issues that would drive him to such an act and b. actually commit such a crime?

We live in a society where people simply will not admit that life is full of risk. They want a danger-free life (witness the 800 airbags in some new cars and the push for cars that drive themselves rather than actually learning to drive and not trying to do 18 things behind the wheel) and can't picture a world where they are responsible for their own safety. Politicians like the two boobs from NY see an opportunity to enhance their images with their constituents so they can remain employed at the next election, whether what they suggest would in any way solve the problems they claim to be trying to solve.

Elsewhere on TFL people have been seriously discussing the value of wearing body armor routinely ... when that world arrives, I'm checking out ... until then, I don't support any cosmetic changes to the laws covering firearms, since they really are designed simply to make the law-abiding citizen's life harder without making the next mass shooting any less likely ...
 
I once saw a bumper sticker that said something like this "Gun free safe zones supply helpless targets for mass murderers". Criminals will pretty much always have access to guns somehow, gun laws just hurt people like me and you who enjoy shooting guns as a hobby or who just want to protect themselves.
 
"Gun free safe zones supply helpless targets for mass murderers".
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the "I'm a victim if I don't have a gun" bumper sticker. If not having a gun makes you helpless in your own defense, then you are already a victim.
 
I do not comprehend the thoughts of a murderer.

- What makes a young man choose to murder a dozen or more complete strangers?

- What makes a young man choose to spend rest of his life in prison?

Jack
 
It may be that he is schizophrenic. NOTE - we don't know.

That is a biological condition that destroys and/or weakens brain structure, chemical systems and neural connections. If that is the case, we can't really understand how he perceives reality.

Back to devil's advocacy. Why subject progun arguments to intense scrutiny before sending them to a general audience. It's called the innoculation effect - if you make an argument that makes no or little sense, later arguments that can be sensible will be ignored.

In the case that we shouldn't ban AR-15s because bolt guns can be used for rampages, will not be convincing to someone. Then, they won't listen to a reasonable argument that we should be able to have ARs.
 
Your example is not applicable to modern mass murderers.

Most modern mass murderers do not have the skill of preplanning,strategic placement or shooting that Whitman had.

They are messed up young men with a massive mental problem with society at large.

They need the availibility of the large capacity magazines to make up for a lack of skill in what they do.

In the most recent case,it appears the young man had skills in making bombs.

For all our sakes,I hope the next nutcase does'nt learn from that.
 
to me it seems the common denominator in all these mass shootings is they always occur in places where victims are virtually guaranteed to be unarmed.
 
to me it seems the common denominator in all these mass shootings is they always occur in places where victims are virtually guaranteed to be unarmed.
Click to expand...

Not quite true, but most do occur where people have problems of some sort, schools, work places, homes of former family members, etc. Most places of employment don't allow gun carry. That folks like Cho and others shoot at colleges, they do so where they have had real or perceived problems.

There is no real indication they choose places because of a lack of guns. They just go where they are angriest.

Some do target places for more random or less logical reasons and seem to just want to kill people. So get into conflicts and once things go south, don't stop, but pursue the situation extensively, such as Chai Vang. Vang, as you know, killed other hunters and was in a location where he expected people to be armed. Take Lamar Moore, he tried to take on a Detroit Police station, wounding four, so not a mass shooting, but attempted mass shooting. The shooting occurred the day after Moore's brother was sentenced to 60 years in prison.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc0UGhPXmD0

Note, he did not use an assault rifle, high capacity firearm, etc. He used a shotgun.
 
It didn't take long for the next incident to crop up. At a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, of all places.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-05-15-14-22

The shooter was killed, so any discernment of motive will have to be derived from examination of whatever he left behind and comments from people who might have known him.

If I may be allowed a snippet of irony, it is a matter of religious requirement for all Sikh males to be armed with a knife, called a kirpan. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan ) Although it is today generally ceremonial, it IS nonetheless a knife. As such, in the knee-jerk reactions to the theater shooting in Aurora such "weapons" would be banned in most (if not all) theaters today. But, as evidenced by this sad event, there is truth to the adage "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight."

The best defense against these types of incidents remains an armed citizenry.
 
These two latest shootings brings another thought to mind ... is there a tipping point coming, where even the political muscle of the NRA and the feelings of 100m gun owners will not be enough to keep legislators and congresspeople from approving anti-gun laws? I don't know if we're there yet, but a few more of these mass murders and I think we are facing problems. Just my two cents ...
 
That is possible. There can be a panic to do something. I don't see it happening before the election (not to enter into politics).

However, if this worthless person has a motive that can be separated from the average gun owner, then common sense may prevail. He is starting to have some back story that sounds evil.
 
He is starting to have some back story that sounds evil.
Click to expand...

Glenn, when you say 'he' are you referring to the theater shooter or the Sikh Synagogue shooter?

Haven't heard much about the Sikh shooter but must admit most of my T.V. time has been spent watching the Olympics.
 
But, as evidenced by this sad event, there is truth to the adage "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight."
Click to expand...
Despite their reputation as "saint-soldiers," the Sikh religion places a great emphasis on kindness and compassion. The knife is treated more as a symbol than a weapon.
 
The guy was a white-supremacist and was the lead singer of a WS rock band. I thought these guys were fading away a bit. I haven't heard mention of the weapon used.

Sent From My Galaxy S 4g Using Tapatalk
 
The guy was a white-supremacist and was the lead singer of a WS rock band. I thought these guys were fading away a bit. I haven't heard mention of the weapon used.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, their numbers seem somewhat stable. You don't hear much of them in the mainstream (and thank goodness, they don't try as hard to ingratiate themselves into mainstream gun culture anymore), but over the last few years, they've gotten somewhat insular and focused.

Even JP Ready, when he was strutting around the Occupy protests, made little mention of his affiliations.

That said, I doubt this guy was acting as a direct part of any group's agenda. That is, beyond just being hateful against non-whites.
 
and there's little (in the way of effective measures) we can do to prevent such things.
Click to expand...

Well... I disagree.

I say this with all due respect to humanity: Yes there is something we can do to prevent mass shootings, it is simply intolerance and discouragement:

Public Death by firing squad for the offender

Firing squad starts at the feet and works their way up. Tell me I'm wrong. I guarantee the next guy (crazy or not) will think twice before considering to proceed with a mass shooting.
 
Last edited:
Public Death by firing squad for the offender

Firing squad starts at the feet and works their way up. Tell me I'm wrong. I guarantee the next guy (crazy or not) will think twice before considering to proceed with a mass shooting.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. Most of these guys plan to die. Many just commit suicide to prevent dealing with the aftermath. So even if they think twice, especially since some are not mentally stable in the first place, it won't matter one ioto.

You are wrong. You guarantee is meaningless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top