|
Post by aquaduct on Aug 4, 2019 20:00:20 GMT -5
Now that they're shooting up suburban Walmarts, I wonder if these folks might be due for a little attitude adjusting. No. No reason to worry here. According to statistics, never really has been. But let's turn the question around, if you were to enact gun control what would you do that would have prevented these episodes? Keep in mind that criminals by definition don't abide by the law. And also keep in mind that several of the recent killers got thier guns entirely legally. Walked right through current gun controls. And keep in mind we don't know the full story yet. Plently of space still left to humiliate the gun control afficiandos. If you can prove something will work to decrease the risk to me and mine, I'll be happy to sign on. But I've got 58 years already with nobody I've ever known being impacted directly. Don't know the actual odds but I'm guessing I'd have to put in another dozen or so lifetimes before there was ever a threat.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Aug 4, 2019 20:37:04 GMT -5
Now that they're shooting up suburban Walmarts, I wonder if these folks might be due for a little attitude adjusting. No. No reason to worry here. According to statistics, never really has been. But let's turn the question around, if you were to enact gun control what would you do that would have prevented these episodes? Keep in mind that criminals by definition don't abide by the law. And also keep in mind that several of the recent killers got thier guns entirely legally. Walked right through current gun controls. And keep in mind we don't know the full story yet. Plently of space still left to humiliate the gun control afficiandos. If you can prove something will work to decrease the risk to me and mine, I'll be happy to sign on. But I've got 58 years already with nobody I've ever known being impacted directly. Don't know the actual odds but I'm guessing I'd have to put in another dozen or so lifetimes before there was ever a threat. All of which is why I think it's hopeless. There is no way out of this horror we have managed to devise for this nation -- we might be able to nip at the corners here and there, but the truth of the matter is that a combination of cultural and political forces have been allowed to swirl into a tornado of horrific events that can only escalate, and I see no way of stopping it.
|
|
|
Post by xyrn on Aug 4, 2019 20:39:48 GMT -5
I'd be interested in seeing some reporting on how people who've been hard-line gun-rights advocates unwilling to accept any compromise on the issue, and who have lost children or other loved ones in any of the mass shootings, feel about guns rights now. Well, I'm sure I'm considered hard-line pro-2A and I'm not a very eloquent writer so here is an answer from Quora that addresses much of your post and sums up my opinion nicely. Here is the question that was asked: "How and why do so many people believe "Gun Control" is the same thing as "taking away all guns”?" Answer, credit Terry Terhune, of Quora
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Aug 4, 2019 21:04:01 GMT -5
Everything I had to say about this was said many shootings ago. I don't think it moved anyone a millimeter then and I doubt that it would now.
|
|
|
Post by t-bob on Aug 4, 2019 21:14:42 GMT -5
I saw tragedy when I woke up. I didn’t even see the TV and the Internet with the paper. I know it happens all the time. I didn’t even see the tragedy thread. Here’s a prayer for all the relatives and friends.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Aug 4, 2019 21:20:28 GMT -5
"Well, thought Skelton, life looked straight in the eye was insupportable, as everyone knew by instinct. The great trick, contrary to the consensus of philosophy, is to avoid looking it straight in the eye. Everything askance and it all shines on."
Tom McGuane.
|
|
|
Post by xyrn on Aug 4, 2019 21:25:06 GMT -5
As an addendum or addition to my post above, I will say the following.
I feel that describing shootings as "gun problems" makes as much sense as describing DWI fatalities as "car problems".
Some here may disagree with that, but I would wager we can agree that the root of the issue is that culturally we have developed a severe anger and frustration management problem in the USA.
Am I wrong?
So, if we can agree on that, as the root, what CAN we do about that?
Anti-bullying legislation? Nope, just going after symptoms (and warning signs). Really, can ANY legislation effect this sort of change? I don't know.
Is it parenting? Or, rather, shitty parenting?
Over-crowded schools?
Dual earner households?
Video games?
Who knows. None of it, all of it?
This is a very complex issue, and it's been a long time brewing - decades.
Remember, in the 1920's you could order a fully automatic Thompson by mail and regular (non mob) people didn't shoot up public places because they got fired, lost their girl or felt all alone in the world. If they couldn't cope they either drank themselves to death or leapt off the Golden Gate. (Still not good, but preferable to the current reality.)
Nothing will turn it around in a presidential term or two, but just *maybe* if there is a major societal shift in our priorities we could get the pendulum to swing back.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Aug 4, 2019 22:11:09 GMT -5
The reasoning in that Quora "answer" amounts to dodging around any incremental measure while insisting that there's a "hidden agenda" and a slippery slope and Secrud Plans to Take Our Guns Away. (BTW, the reminder that the writer is a "U.S. Army Veteran" is irrelevant.)
The non-paranoid part of the argument is that nothing can completely prevent gun deaths, so we should do nothing. Apply that model to, say, a generally fatal disease and ask some medical researchers why they don't just throw their hands up and stop trying. The crucial lie is that since we can't preventing all deaths, it's useless to try to prevent some deaths.
For example: "Most of all shootings in the U.S. occur with a handgun" is a sleight-of-hand argument--it may be statistically true, but the three most recent massacres used military-style long guns, and the Dayton killer's had a 100-round drum magazine that allowed him to kill nine and injure 27 in the 32 seconds before he was himself shot by police. The El Paso murderer used an AK-47 style rifle to shoot 46 people, killing twenty outright. I haven't seen specifics on the El Paso AK-47, but they generally feature a banana magazine and fire a mil-spec round. (The shooter is reported to have had extra magazines.) The California shooter also used an AK-style gun.
So why not make civilian ownership of high-capacity magazines illegal? We control full-auto guns already, along with suppressors. Does a civilian really need a 20- or 30-round magazine for his pistol? Is a 100-round drum magazine a sporting-rifle accessory? Is a short-barrel folding-stock shotgun a good bird gun? While recreational shooting is a Thing, I see no reason not to control--or outright ban--civilian possession of weapons suited only for military and security functions.
The combination of easy access to rapid-fire, high-capacity, quasi-military firearms with the high-speed, wide-reaching, pathology-spreading capacity of the internet makes for a toxic stew. We're not going to prevent every ordinary murder or even most general-criminal and gang violence, but there are measures that can put a dent in the enabling machineries of mass murder.
BTW, the "car problems" of some kinds of fatalities were solved by the adoption of seatbelts, collapsible steering columns, airbags, and crumple zones. Just as some dying-in-a-fire problems were ameliorated by alarms, smoke detectors, sprinkler systems, and fire codes.
|
|
|
Post by xyrn on Aug 4, 2019 22:42:16 GMT -5
... BTW, the "car problems" of some kinds of fatalities were solved by the adoption of seatbelts, collapsible steering columns, airbags, and crumple zones. Just as some dying-in-a-fire problems were ameliorated by alarms, smoke detectors, sprinkler systems, and fire codes. BTW, none of that matters to the public if the vehicle is used in a criminal manner, either being driven drunk or rammed into a crowd at a street fair. Take away guns (good luck) and you'll have many more Uhauls jumping sidewalks, people bursting steam pipes in office buildings and what have you, humans are adaptable. And, per your full post, I didn't list the credentials of the author as they don't matter - he is an American and we are born with a right that the government has promised not to infringe upon, although their track record is terrible. And it's not just him saying gun laws are hopeless, our own Bill H and Todd said similar in this very thread. Stunningly, some people still, despite believing it won't help, want to devote resources to new measures just for the sake of 'doing something'. That's sillier than 'thoughts and prayers'; those are free.
|
|
|
Post by xyrn on Aug 4, 2019 22:49:10 GMT -5
The TL/DR version.
Gun laws ARE hopeless. This IS a huge cultural problem. The problem is NOT hopeless. It will take YEARS of a concerted shift in our individual and group priorities to effect the change we want to see.
|
|
|
Post by AlanC on Aug 4, 2019 23:25:24 GMT -5
Every possible idea to reduce massacres will involve the infringement of somebody's rights. I wouldn't care if they banned high capacity magazines. I have no interest in them but I have relatives that swear they will use them when the unfortunate federal agent shows up at his door to collect it. I don't care about his right to own those but he most certainly does.
Anyway, here is my idea that will mos def be an infringement but you can't make an omelet without breaking an egg- right?
The last few mass shootings were done at schools by students or fairly recent students so my idea was focused on school safety.
I would bet that LEO's have a pretty good profile of a potential mass shooter. I'm sure they study them to the Nth degree. There has to be some commonalities between them even though they lead disparate lives. Have the best profilers in the world create a profile. Have them also design a short questionnaire that might help identify someone that COULD POSSIBLY BE HARBORING THOSE THOUGHTS. I know they can't say for sure but we are looking for a tendency or inclinations or a certain personality.
I would bet that we are not far from having the technology to perform a "Bladerunner" type quiz. I would think a portable room or small trailer where an individual would by monitored by a polygraph along with having their face continually scanned to look for "tells" that would indicate falsehood or evasion. They could monitor heart rate, body language, blood pressure, facial tics, eye contact, every little detail that could give a hint as to their truthfulness or state of mind.
Have the very best minds program an AI that would assess those responses in order to identify potential shooters. Have them answer questions that were designed by the profilers. If they don't pass with flying colors, have it go to the next level with another type of "interview" and different questions or routines. If they fail that one send someone to their home and check them out. If that doesn't look good and they might be a risk, make sure that they have no guns in the house. Confiscate them and warn anyone associated with them that if you let this individual have a gun and they kill someone, we are coming to get you also.
You can't rid the country of high capacity magazines. There are already millions of them here. There are also 3D printers. If you have the political stroke you could ban ammunition but that will be difficult if not impossible as well.
If it works, make every student entering high school have his 5 minutes in the box as a requirement to get into the 9th grade. If that works, make them available to businesses. You want to work here. Go talk to Al the AI in the box. Don't want your rights violated by having to talk to an AI? Fine, go work somewhere else.
If you can't get rid of the guns then you have to have a way to identify and deal with the shooters.
It's probably a hair brained pie-in-the-sky idea but not as dumb as confiscation. What a mess that would be!
Don't bother telling me how it violates their rights. I know that. But all the ideas I hear from politicians and celebrities violate rights also. Somebody's rights are going to get violated. I just think answering a few questions is a lot less disruptive than sending some poor LEO to knock on doors that will have some very well armed and pissed off citizens (who wouldn't be a danger to anyone if left alone) behind them.
Just my $0.02
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Aug 4, 2019 23:32:08 GMT -5
Just to be clear: my response is to the proposition that "describing shootings as 'gun problems' makes as much sense as describing DWI fatalities as 'car problems.'" If the problem is people dying in car crashes, whether alcohol-related or not, one response is to make crashes more survivable. (Another is to provide disincentives for driving while impaired, whether by drink or cell-phone use.)
If one problem with gun deaths is that the shooters are using near-military-grade weapons (high cyclic rate, large magazines, heavy/lethal loads), then reducing and criminalizing access to such weapons (which are distinct from hunting and target guns) is not an unreasonable response. We also restrict access to explosives and poisons, despite the fact that some people will circumvent the restrictions.
And yes, I know that it's Terry Terhune offering military-veteran status as a bogus argumentum ad auctoritas--his logic still comes across as NRA propaganda. I'll have to respectfully disagree with Bill and Todd--problems unaddressed don't solve themselves.
|
|
|
Post by xyrn on Aug 5, 2019 0:45:19 GMT -5
I disagree with some of your points Russell Letson but one thing I like about this group is mostly we can disagree without being disagreeable. Too often in politics and social media people trench in and shout and lob verbal mortars at the other side. I'd rather believe we are all on the same side, of justice and livability of our habitations. I don't want to tread on you, I don't want you to tread on me. I do worry about my 8yo son going to public school, and field trips and being at the local pool, mall, etcetera. I think he's at a greater risk of a shooting than ever before in our nation's history - but I don't believe access to guns and full capacity magazines is what has increased the risk. As in said before and I can prove in many other ways, our access to guns has never been more restricted than it is now and back when a 14 year old with a Sears & Roebuck company catalog could send off for a machine gun, we DID NOT have school shootings. The first modern mass shooting, at UT Austin, was committed with a "deer rifle". We have a people problem, and that's the simple, awful, uncomfortable truth. It makes the problem WAY MORE scary than just mechanical things like guns.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Aug 5, 2019 4:44:58 GMT -5
True.
I don't think there's any disagreement there. The disagreement, where there is one, is the nature of the problem(s).
"It's the guns."
"It's the people, family, society, et. al."
We've tried our hand at banning "military style" weapons. The fix turned out to be merely cosmetic.
(BTW, the DC snipers managed to inflict substantial terror with a bolt-action hunting rifle.)
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Aug 5, 2019 5:15:07 GMT -5
Meanwhile ...
By Drew Harwell / Washington Post
The El Paso massacre began like the fatal attacks earlier this year at mosques in New Zealand and a San Diego-area synagogue: with a racist manifesto and announcement on the anonymous message board 8chan, one of the web’s most venomous refuges for extremist hate.
And like after the mass shootings in Christchurch and the Chabad of Poway synagogue, the El Paso attack was celebrated on 8chan as well: One of the most active threads there early Sunday urged people to create memes and original content, or OC, that could make it easier to distribute and “celebrate the [gunman’s] heroic action.”
“You know what to do!!! Make OC, Spread OC, Share OC, Inspire OC,” an anonymous poster wrote. “Make the world a better place.”
The message board’s ties to mass violence have fueled worries over how to combat a web-fueled wave of racist bloodshed. The El Paso shooting also prompted the site’s founder early Sunday to urge its current owners to “do the world a favor and shut it off.”
“Once again a terrorist used 8chan to spread his message as he knew people would save it and spread it,” said Fredrick Brennan, who founded 8chan in 2013 but stopped working with the site’s owners in December. “The board is a receptive audience for domestic terrorists.”
Twenty people were killed at an El Paso shopping center following the attack by the suspected gunman, who posted a jumbled and racist screed to 8chan minutes before the shooting that ranted against a “Hispanic invasion.” The shooter wrote that he was inspired by the Christchurch massacre, which also began with an 8chan post, and he urged viewers to “do your part and spread this brothers!”
The El Paso shooting, some terrorism experts said, could ratchet up the pressure on law enforcement and government authorities seeking to combat a site that calls itself “the darkest reaches of the internet.”
The site has survived, extremism experts said, in part due to a reluctance from some law-enforcement and intelligence officials to categorize white-supremacist and far-right movements as terror threats. The site has for years been shielded by U.S. laws that limit websites’ legal liability for what their users post, and has been further protected by an internet infrastructure that makes it difficult to take sites down.
Some online researchers also fear that a shutdown of 8chan would only spur hate groups to organize elsewhere. The site’s leaders have appeared emboldened in the face of criticism, adding a message in recent months at the top of its homepage: “Embrace infamy.”
The site is registered as a property of the Nevada-based company N.T. Technology and owned by Jim Watkins, an American web entrepreneur living in the Philippines.
Joan Donovan, director of the Technology and Social Change Research Project at Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center, said posting to 8chan before a mass shooting has become a “tactical” way for attackers to gain attention and amplify their message.
“Mass shooters can control the public conversation about their motives, while at the same time provide the public with a clear explanation for their actions,” Donovan said.
She pointed to a pattern that has developed: “1. Post a racist screed. 2. Carry out racist violence. 3. Inspire others to do the same.” Of the manifestos, she said, they “are becoming more instructive than they are explanatory. This has me very worried that targeted violence will become a meme itself.”
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Aug 5, 2019 6:04:14 GMT -5
As far as I can tell using Google, "Hispanic" isn't a race. Therefore, IMHO, any news outlet that referred to the El Paso shooter's screed or manifesto as "Racist" is guilty of "Fake news". Please reserve the word "Racist" for matters of race.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Aug 5, 2019 7:37:14 GMT -5
"Make the world a better place. "
That is head-spinning, jaw-dropping pure evil, there.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Aug 5, 2019 7:38:24 GMT -5
As far as I can tell using Google, "Hispanic" isn't a race. Therefore, IMHO, any news outlet that referred to the El Paso shooter's screed or manifesto as "Racist" is guilty of "Fake news". Please reserve the word "Racist" for matters of race. Would you settle for xenophobic?
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Aug 5, 2019 7:39:37 GMT -5
Same kind of evil, different name
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Aug 5, 2019 7:43:42 GMT -5
As far as I can tell using Google, "Hispanic" isn't a race. Therefore, IMHO, any news outlet that referred to the El Paso shooter's screed or manifesto as "Racist" is guilty of "Fake news". Please reserve the word "Racist" for matters of race. Would you settle for xenophobic? Sure, just tired of everything being "Racist" when it's not.
|
|