Gun Crime in the USA ~ Shootings and Killings

[Tornado]

The argument that a crazy person will find any possible means of killing someone, thus an inability to procure a gun would not have prevented the tragedy to the degree with which we see it today is inherently flawed because it is a slippery slope fallacy that doesn't reflect the reality of the matter.

 

Which time does it not represent the reality of the matter? Columbine, where bombing the school was the entire point originally? Dark Knight Rises shooting, where the guy shot up the theater and then filled his apartment with bombs for no other reason than to fuck with the police and maybe kill a couple people he knew personally?

 

 

Or all of those hypothetical situations you are purporting where if the person didn't have a gun they wouldn't have happened at all? You have no reason to say it doesn't reflect the reality of the matter; because not only does it not mean anything (of course the reality of the situation is that most use guns now. I never disputed that), but by itself the idea that most crazies would switch to bombs is no more of a slippery slope fallacy than the idea that most crazies just wouldn't do anything. They are both hypothetical, because the only pure reality to go off of is it happens fairly frequently, and when it does people use guns more often than not.

 

 

If I'm supposed to believe that psychos would just go for bombs instead of guns, why aren't we prone to as many bombing incidents in other countries where guns are hard to procure and instead have stupid shit like knifing massacres where the risk of death is statistically lower anyway?

 

I'd say most of the time, that's because when someone in America goes on a shooting rampage, it's called a massacre or mass killing; but when someone blows up a bomb anywhere and kills a bunch of people it's called a terrorist attack; which has little practical difference but is still treated massively different because terrorist acts have a "cause," which for whatever reason gives them some legitimacy. Looking over the Wikipedia list of terrorist incidents in the first half of 2011 alone, I'm seeing at least one bombing per month in Russia; most of them in Moscow or the Moscow area. And I while I have no exact knowledge, I would certainly assume that the place where the Soviets used to be in charge would certainly have extremely tight gun laws.

 

 

If we assume that it's because bombing materials are hard to procure in China and other places, then what about chemical attacks? Remember the anthrax scares, or the Tokyo Subway attacks?

 

If nothing else, completely ignoring the complexity of construction, costs and impracticality of transportation, I'm assuming that fertilizer and diesel fuel is a lot easier procure and store than the things required to cultivate anthrax or create other chemical weapons. I imagine that's partially why whenever chemical weapons scares occur the investigating body automatically start looking for governments who might be to blame.

 

 

There's deadly chemicals everywhere, and I'd wager you could take a shitload of people out in a big enough building, or just by poisoning a supply of water or food.

 

Which is why such things are treated so seriously, with security and safety procedures and such. Poisoning a supply of water or food is also so detached from this conversation as to be meaningless anyway; and would done by someone almost certainly suffering from a wildly different type of psychosis than the type who finds such an abrupt action as a bombing or shooting spree to be an acceptable outlet for their emotions.

 

 

Indeed, if it is indisputable fact that crazies are gonna craze, thus tragedies to the degree we see them in the US during gun sprees are actually inevitable, why aren't we seeing this amazing plethora of all manner of unique attacks with as high or a higher body count as our massacres whenever someone else in another country decides to go postal? Why is it that Breivik was a complete anomaly in the fact of the matter?

 

I'd say the exact same societal situations and expectations that everyone in this thread has already admitted are there and need to be changed dictate the massively violent outbursts that don't happen in other countries. Hell, maybe it's even a lack-of-access-to-healthcare thing, which prevents the people suffering from those societal issues from getting help with them.

 

 

However, I don't believe in this paranoid idea that homicides by other means like knife, blunt object, or bomb would suddenly shoot up to the stratosphere and be on par with the amount of homicides we have by gun if crazy people weren't allowed to get their hands on them; that our rates wouldn't change whatsoever.

 

I never said that there would be no change in rates. Surely there would be a decrease of some kind if for no other reason than due to the technical competency required. But attempting to chase the end result rather than the root cause of the problem will never be as effective, and on top of that you have the already questionable means that it would need to be done under.

 

 

There's just no proof for it. Instead, I believe strongly in this insane idea that if we had less guns, we'd have less gun massacres

 

For which I'll hope you'll extend the same courtesy, caustic tone aside.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Ricky Bobby

[Nepenthe]

Which time does it not represent the reality of the matter? Columbine, where bombing the school was the entire point originally? Dark Knight Rises shooting, where the guy shot up the theater and then filled his apartment with bombs for no other reason than to fuck with the police and maybe kill a couple people he knew personally?

 

 

Or all of those hypothetical situations you are purporting where if the person didn't have a gun they wouldn't have happened at all? You have no reason to say it doesn't reflect the reality of the matter; because not only does it not mean anything (of course the reality of the situation is that most use guns now. I never disputed that), but by itself the idea that most crazies would switch to bombs is no more of a slippery slope fallacy than the idea that most crazies just wouldn't do anything. They are both hypothetical, because the only pure reality to go off of is it happens fairly frequently, and when it does people use guns more often than not.

Okay, and how many shootings have we had in this country that did not involve the presence or intent to use bombs whatsoever? I would say the overwhelming majority of them. In the five school shootings we've had this year alone, absolutely none of them involved bombs.

Anyway, my argument is not that crazies wouldn't do anything at all and thus we'd have some magical lack of homicides if guns were gone. My argument is that I don't believe that our homicide rates would be nearly as high and our massacres so frequent and as deadly if the crazies couldn't get to guns. Bombings would happen because they happen anyway. Same with knifings and beatings; any violent crime really. The question is not one of "Would everything be perfectly okay?" but rather "Would we be in the same state or as worse a state if it was somehow impossible for crazies to get guns?" I don't particularly think so, so it makes sense to talk about the issue along with others in reference to fighting our violent crime rates.

 

 

I'd say most of the time, that's because when someone in America goes on a shooting rampage, it's called a massacre or mass killing; but when someone blows up a bomb anywhere and kills a bunch of people it's called a terrorist attack; which has little practical difference but is still treated massively different because terrorist acts have a "cause," which for whatever reason gives them some legitimacy. Looking over the Wikipedia list of terrorist incidents in the first half of 2011 alone, I'm seeing at least one bombing per month in Russia; most of them in Moscow or the Moscow area. And I while I have no exact knowledge, I would certainly assume that the place where the Soviets used to be in charge would certainly have extremely tight gun laws.

I agree there's little distinction, but I personally find it peculiar if we're under the assumption that these shootings are done out of some part to gain attention or notoriety, as the use of explosives are treated with much more severity and subsequently the people responsible for them, at least to me, more notable in our culture. Same with the desire of taking multiple people out with you.

 

I'd say the exact same societal situations and expectations that everyone in this thread has already admitted are there and need to be changed dictate the massively violent outbursts that don't happen in other countries. Hell, maybe it's even a lack-of-access-to-healthcare thing, which prevents the people suffering from those societal issues from getting help with them.

That seems to be more along the lines of an explanation for why other countries merely do not have as high a violent crime rate as we do, not necessarily why most other massacres in other developed countries that are not by gun use comparatively less deadly means. I don't think the crazy is particularly different in China than it is in the US, and by that I mean, if some dude has decided to go on a massacre, I don't think he cares about cultural perceptions of the weapons he uses.

 

   

I never said that there would be no change in rates. Surely there would be a decrease of some kind if for no other reason than due to the technical competency required. But attempting to chase the end result rather than the root cause of the problem will never be as effective, and on top of that you have the already questionable means that it would need to be done under.

The argument that "someone who wants to kill will do so anyway, so gun control should not be the issue" inherently implies that there is no significant difference between different types of violent crime in terms of the means to do so, their potential deadliness, and their rate of occurrence, thus you would not see any decrease in rates if the means to do one kind of crime were somehow eliminated. If you admit there would be a decrease as a result of making guns harder to obtain by crazies, then you are admitting it's helpful. Is it the solution to the entire problem? Of course not. I'm not saying that. However, let's not throw it to the wayside either; we should pursue every avenue rigorously. As I've said before, this is a cultural issue. Multiple things need to be addressed.

 

    

For which I'll hope you'll extend the same courtesy, caustic tone aside.

I'm not being snarky, but you want proof of what specifically? That less guns equal less gun crime?

 

I'm getting a Concealed Carry permit as soon as I can so I don't have to be the helpless victim if I get stuck in such a situation.

Unless you're Vash the Stampede, having a gun on you does not increase your chances of survival in the event of a spontaneous attack. If anything else, your madly inaccurate firing during a stand-off you were not mentally prepared for would probably injure other civilians, as it did in the Times Square incident we had this year.

Edited December 15, 2012 by North Pole Nepenthe

[Aquaslash]

I'm glad the point was made that the whole "we need guns so we can rise up against an oppressive government" argument is total bull.  I may be woefully ignorant on the subject, but I don't see why the common man has any need to own any kind of submachine gun, or anything with greater firing capacity than a shotgun.  A well aimed pistol is all you need to defend against home invaders, and even then, the aim ought to be to DISABLE them with a leg shot, not kill them with anything above the waist.

 

Man forget Islamic terrorists or whatever, America is its own worst enemy.

[Solly]

 A well aimed pistol is all you need to defend against home invaders, and even then, the aim ought to be to DISABLE them with a leg shot, not kill them with anything above the waist.

 When people are taught defensive shooting, they're taught to aim for the available center of mass; chest, stomach, whatever they can see. The biggest available target is the best, because shooting someone in the legs when they're in motion would be very difficult.

 

If I were a mother with a kid, and owned a gun for self-defense, I wouldn't be aiming for his legs, because chances are that I don't have the expertise to hit them if he's moving, and because I wouldn't want to take any risks. That's not even counting other factors, such as whether or not the assailant has an accomplice, or if he's also armed, or whether or not the leg-shot would actually incapacitate him. 

 

With that said, I don't actually own a gun, and I never want to. They make me uncomfortable, and I'm not fond of America's gun availability either, but I think the whole "you should be aiming for the legs" claim comes off as wishful thinking.

[Solkia]

these broken quote boxes are making it hard to read this debate.

[Stacy]

I'm getting a Concealed Carry permit as soon as I can so I don't have to be the helpless victim if I get stuck in such a situation.

 

How would this help? What if you did happened to be in a situation like this and you miss the attacker and kill someone else instead?

 

 

You see this is another problem this mentality that you need a Gun to feel safe, all the time. Its paranoia like this that gives the gun sellers a giant hard-on.

 

Why do people think owning a gun would make them better, stronger and bigger? 

Edited December 15, 2012 by BW199148

[KrazyBean]

So apparently it was Mass Effect's fault that this bastard went on a rampage. He liked the game on it's Facebook page before all this happened, so that means that:

1. The game must have brainwashed him at some point during play and gave him orders or...
2. People are just retarded.

Take your pick. My bro is a HUGE Mass Effect fan, and yet he hasn't killed 20 kids...so I know which answer is right.

Edited December 15, 2012 by KrazyBean

[Stacy]

 

 

 

Can we at least agree that Justin Bieber fans are the worst?

 

Christ people! Think before you post stuff like this! 

[Candescence]

Look at the top banner in the image, with the breaking news thing beside it.

 

 

So the person who performed this horrible act apparently was both mentally ill AND an idiot, seeing as how he apparently believed the apocalypse was actually gonna occur on the 21st. Christ.

 

I swear the whole 'Mayan Calender Apocalypse' thing was proven to be garbage ages ago, what with the end of the Mayan calender supposedly being a time of great celebration instead.

[Solkia]

So who else is not going outside on the 21st?

[Stacy]

So the person who performed this horrible act apparently was both mentally ill AND an idiot, seeing as how he apparently believed the apocalypse was actually gonna occur on the 21st. Christ.

 

I swear the whole 'Mayan Calender Apocalypse' thing was proven to be garbage ages ago, what with the end of the Mayan calender supposedly being a time of great celebration instead.

 

Sadly their are parts of the internet that still genuinely it might happen and they hype it all up. You only have to look at Millennium Bug, and all that BS where some Crazy Religious People built bunkers and stocked on Ridiculous amounts of food because they honestly thought "Jezus was a commin'" to know that is all a load of old bollocks.

 

Acid Causality nutjobs think the 21st is when the NWO will began and alien reptiles will begin harvesting our brains, so the sales of Tin Foil Hats are through the roof once again.

 

Remember this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_(religious_group)

 

Lets hope this doesn't happen again.

Edited December 15, 2012 by BW199148

[Tornado]

A well aimed pistol is all you need to defend against home invaders, and even then, the aim ought to be to DISABLE them with a leg shot, not kill them with anything above the waist.

 

When you shoot a weapon at someone, you shoot to kill. Period. There is no such thing as "shoot to disable."

 

 

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that you shoot with the intent to kill, because more often then not the intent in a self-defense situation is simply to shoot to stop, but you never intentionally shoot anyone anywhere on their body operating on the assumption that it will just wound them compared to shooting them somewhere else.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Ricky Bobby

[SonikkuForever]

This just in: A new shooting, this time in a hospital in Birmingham. A man with a gun shot two employees and a police officer before being killed by another officer.

 

Who will be the next victims?

[PSI Wind]

Jesus christ, I wasn't being serious last night when I talked to a friend. Now you tell me he DID do it out of fear for 2012?

God........

[PSI Wind]

Look at the top banner in the image, with the breaking news thing beside it.

 

 

So the person who performed this horrible act apparently was both mentally ill AND an idiot, seeing as how he apparently believed the apocalypse was actually gonna occur on the 21st. Christ.

 

I swear the whole 'Mayan Calender Apocalypse' thing was proven to be garbage ages ago, what with the end of the Mayan calender supposedly being a time of great celebration instead.

Did you take that screen grab or find it on the internet because I can't find that anywhere on CNN or any other news site

[turbojet]

Is this the gun rights debate?

 

If so, I like to say that I am completely neutral on the whole subject and could care less whether one should limit the access of guns or not.

 

Or are we reporting and discussing our opinions every time that a crazy person starts capping asses in the U.S.?

 

I'm so confused.

[Speederino]

Oh you have got to be fucking kidding me. I know this shouldn't be surprising. I know this tends to happen after every tragic incident in the U.S. But god damnit Westboro, can't you lay off for fucking ONCE?

Yes, seriously.


This is even poorer taste than usual, even for them.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Speederino

[ArtFenix]

My sincere condolences to the people who have lost their children, brothers and sisters. At the time like this, I wish it was prohibited for citizens to carry a gun in the US.

Edited December 15, 2012 by ArtFenix

[JezMM]

Oh you have got to be fucking kidding me. I know this shouldn't be surprising. I know this tends to happen after every tragic incident in the U.S. But god damnit Westboro, can't you lay off for fucking ONCE?

Yes, seriously.

This is even poorer taste than usual, even for them.

 

...I'm not even going to click that.

 

As if I need anything else about this situation to be angry about.

[Solly]

Oh you have got to be fucking kidding me. I know this shouldn't be surprising. I know this tends to happen after every tragic incident in the U.S. But god damnit Westboro, can't you lay off for fucking ONCE?

Yes, seriously.

It's hard to come up with anything new to say about these guys, because their shtick is getting old. Hopefully their fucked up way of thinking become extinct in my lifetime, but I somehow doubt it. 

I don't understand. Who wants to believe in a God that has nearly 2 dozen children killed because gays are getting married in certain parts of the country? Do these thoughts bring anybody any kind of comfort? I should think not. If I were a theist, I'd never worship that kind of a God- he wouldn't fucking deserve it.Their church and belief system are based entirely around fear-mongering and paranoia. 

[Scar]

Oh you have got to be fucking kidding me. I know this shouldn't be surprising. I know this tends to happen after every tragic incident in the U.S. But god damnit Westboro, can't you lay off for fucking ONCE?

Yes, seriously.

This is even poorer taste than usual, even for them.

NASA needs to dust off the Space Shuttle and ship these retards to the moon.....

Its hard to imagine that people exist who blame a certain, innocent demographic for all the shite that goes wrong. And to then not have any sympathy for the families who lost their children, who potentially each had rich purposeful futures ahead of them? Its totally.....mind-warping to think that people exist with this kind of mentality....

[Badnik Mechanic]

As I said months ago, cracking down on the things that make people feel like an acceptable outlet for their emotions is to shoot up a Wal-Mart is more important than limiting one of the options that they have for doing it. Because the people who have reached a state where they decide to do such a thing are going to do such a thing with whatever the most convenient/destructive outlet they have at their disposal. The major problem is not guns nor violent video games, neither gun control nor a militaristic attitude, but mostly how our society deals with and represses mental problems.

 

 

You know... this argument also falls completely flat when you realise something.

 

Despite the fact there have been recent events in the UK, Europe and other countries were some nutter has gone out and killed a load of people.

 

The US, is the only country which actually has it's own dedicated topic to mass killings because they happen so regually. Oh I'm not saying that SSMB is the centre of the universe so thats scientific proof or something, but come on, if they happen that regually it has it's own topic, you know something is up. And every single time the same reason comes up 'they had easy access to guns' and every single time the same defence comes up 'well they could have done it with a 'insert weapon here.'

 

This notion of 'taking away guns won't solve the problem' is complete rubbish and everyone knows it is. Even the lines in here about 'well they may make a bomb insted' get real... Even if you looked up how to make an explosive and actually bought all the stuff to make one, do you know how difficult it would be to actually make a stable explosive that would work long after you got out of the way? It's not an easy thing to do since you're dealing with chemicals and substances that need to be weighed out to exactly the right ammounts otherwise you'll most likely blow yourself up.

 

P.S. New game. Those Beiber fans moaning about the event on the news, count how many still have their twitters running.

[Conando]

*Sees apocalypse thing*

 

This is why people need to stop trying to come up with goddamn dates for the end of the world. It gives the mentally ill something to go off about.

[Tornado]

The US, is the only country which actually has it's own dedicated topic to mass killings because they happen so regually. Oh I'm not saying that SSMB is the centre of the universe so thats scientific proof or something, but come on, if they happen that regually it has it's own topic, you know something is up.

Probably because few people actually care when it happens in, say, Colombia. Or Mexico. Or the Middle East. I personally know someone living in Colombia who was injured in a car bomb and was actually shot at not even two weeks ago while stopping by his school to drop off some paperwork. In the span of 6 months, he was nearly killed twice. But there's no thread about the constant violence in Colombia. That's despite Colombia having what is basically the equivalent of a may-issue legal standing regarding private firearms ownership, combined with extremely strict standards on military rifle ownership and permissable ammunition laws similar to Mexico's "war caliber" laws (but I'll stop here to keep this from turning into a statistics splurge).

Speaking of Mexico, it has been in what a lot of people would consider anarchy for the past several years now. Where's that thread? And while we have a thread about Israel, the only time that ever gets posted in is when Israel shoots back at people who are constantly shooting rockets and artillery at them. That shit doesn't even generally make it on the news anymore until Israel responds.

Couple that with the way that this board generally treats American politics (such as the disgusting pretext that the 2008 Presidential Election thread was started under pre-board wipe), and I'm not exactly seeing how there being a thread on SSMB about what is largely an American political issue means anything whatsoever.

 

 

And every single time the same reason comes up 'they had easy access to guns' and every single time the same defence comes up 'well they could have done it with a 'insert weapon here.'

And every time it goes around in circles a few times and ends up right back at square one, so clearly there it isn't quite that cut and dried.

 

 

 

 

This notion of 'taking away guns won't solve the problem' is complete rubbish and everyone knows it is.

Well, I guess that settles that, then.

 

 

 

 

Even the lines in here about 'well they may make a bomb insted' get real... Even if you looked up how to make an explosive and actually bought all the stuff to make one, do you know how difficult it would be to actually make a stable explosive that would work long after you got out of the way?

Yes, actually. I do. Something still doesn't need to be terribly sophisticated as an explosive to cause a lot of damage, and considering just how many of these shootings end up in the perpetrator eating their own bullet anyway, the practical difference for that particular hurdle isn't much either on such cases.

You want another example of something he could have done if he wanted to kill a bunch of kids with no chance of being stopped until he was done? He could have gotten in a suitably big car (of which there are plenty in the US) and gunned it down the sidewalk when they were letting out of school. Considering the age of the children, any that he hit likely would have died. Where's the complexity and difficulty in that? Had this kid not stolen his mom's gun and gone to the school with it, what would have stopped him from doing that instead? Since you're clearly making the implication that he only could have done something so tragic with a gun, should we keep going down the list of things he could have used instead?

Edited December 15, 2012 by Ricky Bobby

[Badnik Mechanic]

Probably because few people actually care when it happens in, say, Colombia. Or Mexico. Or the Middle East.

 

 

 

Oh my, this must be desperate if we're now bringing the middle east and mexico as part of the comparison to the united states.

 

Yes the middle east, are we talking about the nations which have political instability as well as rival factions competing for control in certain providences and territories? Or are we focusing on the nations which have direct parallels to the USA and other first world nations?

 

Mexico, do I even need to mention the Drug War and the lack of control the government has over it as a reason as to why gun crime here is off the scale? Or should I just assume that the US has a similar thing going on? Even in the columbia example, the reason given was for rival drug gangs.

 

 

Well, I guess that settles that, then.

 

 

*looks for your attempt to offer a counter argument*

 

I guess it does.

 

You want another example of something he could have done if he wanted to kill a bunch of kids with no chance of being stopped until he was done? He could have gotten in a suitably big car (of which there are plenty in the US) and gunned it down the sidewalk when they were letting out of school. Considering the age of the children, any that he hit likely would have died. Where's the complexity and difficulty in that? Had this kid not stolen his mom's gun and gone to the school with it, what would have stopped him from doing that instead?

 

See what I mean.

 

You say 'it was easy access to guns' instantly the 'what if' card is played. Yeah, lets just ignore the whole how easy it is to get a gun in the US as a factor in all this, and instead play the what if game instead before people finally realise theres a problem.