Gun Crime in the USA ~ Shootings and Killings

[Linkabel]

Mexico is not in a state of anarchy.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Jaime Bond

[Jeffhog]

So Bioware and Mass Effect have been attacked by media-guzzling folks who don't know any better.

 

Here's what Jim Sterling said on the issue.

 

 

Mass Effect and More Attacked Over School Shooting

 

Angry mob goes after games when media misleads them
 

Yesterday, the mainstream media sunk to a new low in its rush to build the latest death circus. Following a horrific school shooting in a Connecticut kindergarten, news sources --chiefly CNN-- jumped to dangerous speculation, with reporters going so far as to the publicize the killer's Facebook account. 

 

Unfortunately, it was the wrong Facebook account. Somewhere along the line, people had confused killer Adam Lanza with his brother Ryan, and so several social network profiles with the name of the wrong man were being shared and vilified online. Meanwhile, one of the Ryan Lanzas had to deal with losing his brother (and mother, who was teaching at the school), and found himself accused of murder in a public spectacle. 

 

However, Ryan Lanza was not the only person wrongfully targeted by the media. After discovering his Facebook page, CNN's audience noticed Ryan had "liked" Mass Effect, and that tenuous link was enough to kickstart a witch hunt.

 

Ironically, after being inspired to stupidity by bad media influences, a bunch of dribbling idiots went to attack a game for being a bad media influence. 

 

 

 

"Good job guys, you have blood on your hands that won't wash off," claimed one person. Others called for the game -- one of the least controversial in terms of in-game violence -- to be banned. One person even wanted the developers to be banned somehow, as punishment for, "Creating such sickness."

 

It's safe to assume none of these attackers actually know what the game is about, and didn't bother finding out before they accused it of "promoting evil" and claimed the employees of BioWare need to, "Burn in Hell." Long after it came to pass that news sources had screwed up and outed the wrong person, the moral guardians of Facebook continued their assault. Once they sniff blood, the truth no longer matters. 

 

Right now, the Mass Effect page is flooded by support from fans who have done a good job of swallowing up misguided abuse with rationality and reason. Meanwhile, it seems the wolves have begun to slink off and find something else to lash out at. 

 

Naturally, other news sources went for the blanket approach when finding anything other than the killer to blame for the killings. FOX News brought on alleged analyst Dr. Keith Ablow to claim reality TV and Facebook have reduced our ability to empathize, before saying, "I guess you could add gaming to that, computer games."

 

All during this blame game, the hand-wringing television pundits fail to realize that, through all of this, THEY are the media that seem to inspire a lack of empathy while turning tragedy into a sideshow. THEY are the ones glorifying this type of violence by talking about it 24/7 with dramatic recreations, fevered dissemination of any minuscule bit of information, and an obsessive focus on the killer's life. 

 

When I think about being out of touch with reality, I don't think of gamers, I think of the kind of person who'd tell a game developer to "Burn in Hell" because a wrongfully accused "gunman" happened to like a videogame on Facebook. When I think of a lack of empathy, I think of scores of imbeciles callously blaming innocent people for the deaths of children, just because they made a product that the assumed killer happened to enjoy at one time.

 

But the "news makers" who wrongfully accused somebody of an awful crime, and inspired their audiences to start harassing innocent people with an onslaught of truly vile insults, will continue to sit in their glass houses, gleefully throwing stones at everybody else while refusing to take a look at their own grimy role in the sleazy carnival of murder. After all, idiots who are quick to hold "the media" to account seem consistently unable to hold the media they consume to the same level of scrutiny, so the likes of FOX and CNN never have to feel responsible for the shit they perpetuate.

 

With that in mind ... I guess we'll do this again in a few months. 

 

Fucking hell.

 

 

[turbojet]

Define order.

[Tornado]

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.

 

And then, the point was missed by a country mile. I wasn't the one who brought up how there's a thread on SSMB about it collectively as a concept and how that must mean something in and of itself, and I merely pointed out why there was a thread on SSMB about it. All you've done is explain why the things are happening without even touching on the important part regarding how no one on SSMB ever says anything about them. Does the fact that Mexico's violence has to do with their being a massive drug war that the government is ineffectively battling somehow make it less threadworthy, as you are implying to be the case? What about the situation in Colombia? The violence there that has to do with the corruption of the Colombian government makes it useless to talk about compared to American gun violence?

 

 

So, I'll just ask this time: What exactly about what happens in Mexico, or Colombia or another country that has bad shit happen in it constantly makes it so they aren't worth discussing? It can't simply be because we know why it is happening there, since you were so quick to state definitively the exact reason it happens in America.

 

Maybe the reason there is a thread about American shootings on SSMB and not about those other things is because the people who post in them don't care or know about those other things? I mean, the media never does generally either, but I'm not sure if it is Chicken->Egg or Egg->Chicken.

Hell, could it be nothing more than a way for a certain smaller group of members within a larger group who holds similar beliefs who just want to feel better about themselves rather than discuss the information like the larger group, because they are the self-enlightened ones who get to look down on those who have different views on the subject (the, how you say, "Enlightened European" compared to the "ass-backward American")? Because while that certainly happens SSMB, a lot in fact, surely no one here would take tragedies of this magnitude and use them as nothing more than a way to circle jerk about how above that sort of thing they all are.

 

 

 

But either one of those still holds a lot more water for why there is a thread about it on SSMB than the idea that a Sonic message board can in any way be considered a barometer for the importance of problems in the world.

 

 

*looks for your attempt to offer a counter argument*

 

I guess it does.

 

Indeed. Having been down this road before several times, over this exact topic no less, I'm well aware of how it would go to try to discuss matters when you throw out fallacious logical statements with such finality.

 

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

 

Well, fuck me. Complete rubbish? And I was the only one not told? Shit, what's the point of even saying anything in response to such clearly defined logic?

 

 

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.

 

Or, as I actually said and you quoted to begin with, we should try going after the increasingly deep-rooted societal problems that cause such violent outbursts and have only been exacerbated by recent events, rather than the outlets for executing them after it is far too late to stop them.

 

But by all means ban all guns. That is certain to solve all of the problems in society and American culture as a whole, which is what I'm personally more concerned with. And be sure to state that I'm ignoring the effect guns have on the issue even after saying that I agreed with Nepenthe regarding how without guns, the issue wouldn't pop up as much simply out of practicality. You already glossed over when I admitted the same issue you brought up with bombs in comparison to guns, so what's the difference in doing it twice?

Edited December 15, 2012 by Ricky Bobby

[JezMM]

No-one is saying that banning guns will solve every problem.  But considering they are the "easiest" tool for killing people with (you don't have to assemble them like a bomb, you don't need to get up close and personal with every victim like you do a knife, etc), making them incredibly difficult to get would be a hurdle that many very well be enough to stop a huge number of would-be murderers from lashing out like this.

 

 

Frankly I find it disturbing in general that anyone would consider a tool specifically designed to kill things to be a "good" thing.

 

 

 

Point is, banning guns is one of MANY things that would stop events like this happening again.  And it's one of the biggest of those many things.

Edited December 15, 2012 by JezMM

[Solkia]

I'm not joining this debate because I think the whole "omg teh guns are evil" is stupid, yet understandable. But I will leave this here, and yes you've probably heard it all before.

 

 

http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html

[SonikkuForever]

Larry Pratt, the neo-nazi, racist leader of the advocacy group Gun Owners of America (how someone like that is the leader of anything I'll never know), has published his take on the tragedy:

 

“Gun control supporters have the blood of little children on their hands. Federal and state laws combined to ensure that no teacher, no administrator, no adult had a gun at the Newtown school where the children were murdered. This tragedy underscores the urgency of getting rid of gun bans in school zones. The only thing accomplished by gun free zones is to insure that mass murderers can slay more before they are finally confronted by someone with a gun.”

 

Mr. Pratt is currently trying to convince the government to allow guns in all schools. Y'know, because we wouldn't want anyone to get shot. *facepalms*

 

He also claimed that the Aurora theatre shooting was staged by the government, and that Trayvon Martin was the one to blame for getting shot because he "should have run away".

 

And to think he used to be a politician! Yikes!

[Danj86]

What a waste...

 

I'm not really sure how anyone could stop this sort of thing. They are several possible options, but whatever is chosen will piss somebody off. One of the sad things about the internet, everyone thinks that there own worthless opinion is worth sharing with people that don't give a fuck. I don't envy the decision makers.

 

I do find the article Solkia shared, to be quite interesting. I didn't know about Switzerland and their own gun...obsessions?

 

I do also find it kinda annoying how you always see some guy show up quoting the right to bear arms thing. It's very old, we change our priorities as the years go by. Old laws often tend to look dumb when we look back on them, because we don't need them anymore, because we evolve.

According to a website that is not wikipedia, we still have some odd laws. Like Whale being the property of the monarch: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw2cc1317/15/13/section/xiij And it being illegal to wear armour in Parliament: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw2/7/0/introduction

 

I may never understand the need to always have a gun.

 

But the important thing for now, is to show support for the families involved. Even when the subject can spark an urge to lash out.

[Old dead account]

I wonder what else Ryan Lanxa is a fan of. I'm totally gonna go after fans everything he likes and their companies

[EXshad]

I do also find it kinda annoying how you always see some guy show up quoting the right to bear arms thing. It's very old, we change our priorities as the years go by. Old laws often tend to look dumb when we look back on them, because we don't need them anymore, because we evolve.

According to a website that is not wikipedia, we still have some odd laws. Like Whale being the property of the monarch: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw2cc1317/15/13/section/xiij And it being illegal to wear armour in Parliament: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw2/7/0/introduction

 

Sorry, but the inconvenient truth is that it is the Second Amendment to the most important document in US history. Like it or not, it's there, and the intent, or spirit of the law, is clear: in 1791, many states believed that the US constitution did not, in and of itself, do enough to defend the rights of the people, so thus the Bill of Rights was created. Amendment 2's purpose was to prevent the government from abridging people's right to use force in response to tyranny.

 

But that was then, and this is now. In the context of this debate, by bringing up this "odd old law," I was simply stating that I support the spirit of the law, but also noted that the letter of the law is both dated and vague. I've stated where I stand on gun laws already, so I won't dig into that again, but I think it's important to amend this.. well, amendment, to fit a more modern definition and to expound on when exactly it is and is not appropriate to "bear arms," as well as what is being referred to by the term "arms," among other things, because it is simply too vague to function in our current society as it stands.

 

Personally, I think that discussing the second amendment in context to gun-related crime is pretty important, but hey, maybe I'm crazier than I already think I am.

 

 

"Arm" is not a synonym for weapon. A baseball bat is not an arm. You can arm yourself with a baseball bat, but this doesn't denote the bat to be an arm. But forget my pedantry; let's assume there's no ribble-rabble over the nuances and definitions of the second amendment, that everyone universally agrees that it is for the sake of castle doctrine and to fight governmental oppression. Questions: Why would abolishing the second amendment end castle doctrine when this has not been the case for countries with similar self-defense laws, and what the fuck would any law matter if it came to a point where the citizenry absolutely had to turn our guns on the government? Frankly, I find the whole "fight the regime" idea to be crazy both as a point of the amendment in this day and age and a matter of reality: Your little pistol is not going to do anything against heat-seeking missiles. The American Armed Forces are nothing to fuck around with, and we would get our asses handed to us if we tried to fight a true tyranny of the US government. The second amendment needs an outright overhaul if not a repealing altogether.

 

I should have tackled this earlier, and this has little to nothing to do in regards to the current debate, so I apologize if I'm insulting anyone by sort of going off-topic just for a second to clear something up that I wish I brought up earlier. During the American Revolution, in addition to aid from France and the Netherlands, most of our weaponry came from upper-class Revolutionaries. Cannons, mass quantities of gun powder, muskets, and other weapons were property of wealthier members of society. Today, that hasn't changed. The government has the weapons it has via military contracts with corporate entities that are commissioned to create heat-seeking missiles, cutting-edge military vehicles, etc.

 

The only difference is that, today, those same corporations are in lock-step with the government thanks to extensive lobbying efforts and the aforementioned military contracts. Thus, unlike the upper-class during the time of the Revolution, they and the government might as well be considered one unit. However, if for some reason these corporations didn't like the activities of the government and supported the citizens' cause, whatever that might be, then some of these weapons would indeed by at the disposal of the people.

 

I feel kinda bad for bringing this up, again, as it doesn't really have any baring on the current debate and I openly admit that, but again, this was kinda nagging at me and I wish I brought it up earlier. But once again, this has nothing to do with the current debate, and I don't want to derail the topic out of respect for the victims of this tragedy.

Edited December 16, 2012 by EXshad

[Remy]

Sounds similar to the logic that Legalized Guns are the cause for this shooting

How he would have shot someone without a gun? :3

 

[turbojet]

You know the NRA should have been a rap group in the early 90s. I mean they fit right in with the NWA.

 

Just making an observation.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

 

Random US law question: why to people hold the amendments in such high regard? It's a revision to the original constitution, why is it such a bad thing for there to be more amendments, or for amendments to be repeale? 

To my knowledge, they hold them in such high regard because without them they would cause problems that they think the amendments prepare them for. The first amendment effectively prevents censorship so that it makes it harder for people with power to want to silence voice or make media illegal because they don't like it. The 2nd amendment is read to allow citizens to protect themselves by arming themselves, but as we can see it's become the subject of abuse in some cases. And so forth with other amendments such as the 13 which abolished slavery, the 14th allowing them to be citizens just like white people, and so on...

 

It is not entirely a bad thing for there to be more amendments, to revise them, or for them to be repealed but it is DIFFICULT AS HELL to do either one. The Constitution has been around for 3 centuries and yet only 17 amendments have been added, and of these amendments only ONE has been repealed, namely the amendment that prohibited alcohol...and I'm sure many of us are aware of the Prohibition?

 

The process in revision and repealing isn't easy. You have to have 2/3^rds of the vote in both houses of the Senate or a national convention in order for any kind of alteration to even be brought to the table, then 3/4th of either the state legislatures or ratifying conventions are required for it to be done to the constitution.

Edited December 16, 2012 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Danj86]

Personally, I think that discussing the second amendment in context to gun-related crime is pretty important, but hey, maybe I'm crazier than I already think I am.

Oh, I didn't mean not discussing the law thing. I forgot to mention that the amendment is only talked about when defending the current gun laws and when a tragedy like this happens.

 

But it seems the information given so far, implies that the amendments can't be changed because it's tradition...

Saying that, I don't know much about the country and I really don't want to risk offending anyone.

[Patticus]

Is there any truth to this... this thing that seems to be everywhere on my Facebook feed right now? Genuine question.
 

 
Should the media's one-sided coverage of these kinds of events (people do love a monster) be considered a solid reason for subsequent mass killings? And if so, should the media be under a moral, even legal obligation to minimize coverage of the killer and maximize coverage of the victims, in order to prevent people in the future from saying "I'd be remembered for a long time by committing this atrocity, but forgotten in an instant by just committing suicide"? I understand free speech laws come in here, and the old saying goes 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions', but even so... should media outlets be fined or penalized in some other way when it reports mass killings in such an irresponsible way?

 

Sounds similar to the logic that Legalized Guns are the cause for this shooting

 
You can't deny that the ridiculously easy availability of firearms, particularly when compared to the prohibitive costs of mental healthcare, has played a role (alongside other significant factors) in the US' high gun crime rates.
 

I wonder what else Ryan Lanxa is a fan of. I'm totally gonna go after fans everything he likes and their companies

 
Are you actually being serious?

[Casshern]

...There is a lot of evil in this world...

[JezMM]

I really dislike the attitude of "we need guns to defend ourselves from people with guns" because... well here's the kicker... if there are no guns... they don't have guns either!  Astonishing!

 

The downside is the whole bloody country is so used to having guns as a right that there would be an even bigger demand for shady dealings and getting guns through illegal means, so... yeah when people say "they'd get guns anyway" they probably are right.

 

At the end of the day I think America just dug itself into a giant hole of idiocy with regards to guns and there's no real way to dig itself out now.  I'm just glad I don't live there.

Edited December 16, 2012 by JezMM

[Patticus]

If you ban all firearms outright, the black market will immediately take over and, if anything, gun crime rates will only get worse. No, it'd be best to keep them legal and regulated, there are many other effective means of curbing gun crime, which have already been repeatedly suggested right in this topic:

• Promoting responsible gun ownership
• Tackling poverty (which would include further reforms of the healthcare system, among many other things)
• Promoting education
• Making mental healthcare easier to obtain
• Getting rid of lobby groups, maybe SuperPACs and hopefully Citizens United too
• Ban all private gun sales, e.g. at gun shows
• Make gun owners get training (including safety & maintenance), written and practical testing, buy insurance et al, similar to car owners

There, plenty of things for successive governments to do which don't involve a blanket ban and which would really help out the country as a whole.

 

If or when societal attitudes change to view firearms less as toys and more as dangerous weapons suited only to a handful of very specific circumstances, then maybe certain types of gun (e.g. those firearms in use by the military now) can be effectively removed from public life (or at least made leaps and bounds harder to obtain) and not be expected to turn up on the black market the next day, easier to buy than ever before.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Patticlaus

[Stacy]

Personally the "bear arms" part of the 2nd Amendment is kinda unnecessary nowadays. At the time when it was made it was quite understandable and reasonable seeing as the British were still a threat as well as the natives and other remaining colonies to the new Nation. Now you have the police and the army to protect the populace the only time American citizens would have to arm themselves is if they were invaded and the army couldn't protect them any more.

 

To be fair if the 2nd Amendment outlawed the "bear arms" part it wouldn't stop gun violence outright. If you really wanted a gun you can still get one through illegal channels it would be no different than Europe and other parts of the World. But maybe there would be a decrease in these types of mass shootings. But perhaps it is too late to do anything like that.

 

I think it has a lot to do with education, paranoia and old "traditions" America has with guns.

 

Perfect example:

 

 

EDIT: According to BBC News a lot of Misinformation is being spread around the internet on Soical Media Websites regrading the shooting.

Edited December 16, 2012 by BW199148

[Old dead account]

 

Are you actually being serious?

...Of course not

[EXshad]

Oh, I didn't mean not discussing the law thing. I forgot to mention that the amendment is only talked about when defending the current gun laws and when a tragedy like this happens.

 

But it seems the information given so far, implies that the amendments can't be changed because it's tradition...

Saying that, I don't know much about the country and I really don't want to risk offending anyone.

 

The Amendments fortunately CAN be changed, via ratifying other amendments. However, it is a very arduous process to do so and quite sadly, due to how divisive politics have become in America, I don't see it happening any time soon.

 

Also, in other news, someone on facebook just posted about how apparently in the same town this horrible shit happened in, there is now a bomb threat. My thoughts and prayers are with everyone in that town, whether or not this is true or not, though I'm sincerely hoping it's not. These people have been through enough tragedy, and I for one and tired of hearing about these kind of stories. I'm also going to refrain from posting a smart-ass comment how this could have been prevented if guns were outlawed.

Edited December 16, 2012 by EXshad

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I really dislike the attitude of "we need guns to defend ourselves from people with guns" because... well here's the kicker... if there are no guns... they don't have guns either!  Astonishing!

The thing is that a lot of them who go out and do this monstrous shit don't even go through the process of getting a liscense for them in the first place, so the attitude of "if there are no guns, no one will have them" doesn't work as well either. More responsible people will go through the process of having a background check and the likes to allow you to obtain a gun, but others will give you a gun simply because you have the cash.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyGkRXsD19U

[SonikkuForever]

When Congress opens tomorrow, a bill will be introduced banning the ownership, transfer, or sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines (which is supposedly one of Obama's priorities). Time will tell if it will get killed in the House by the lobbyist bullies who have bribed their way into the government. I really hope it passes. If you want to hunt, use a rifle. A pistol's fine for self-defense. But there is absolutely no reason for any civilian to own a weapon like the Bushmaster .223 caliber AR-15, the gun used in the massacre. It looks like this:

With our current laws, anyone can waltz into a gun shop and buy one of these things. Something tells me that this is not what our founding fathers had in mind when they drafted the 2nd Amendment.

[SuperStingray]

Our culture is more the problem than the firearms.  Most countries with gun control laws don't really have many oppositions to them because either they don't really see a need for guns or enough trained people have guns that irresponsible or malicious people don't pose enough of a threat.  In America, a desire self-defense makes a lot of sense because we have intrinsically competitive ideologies like Capitalism and Social Darwinism.  And people who hold these stances see guns as a tool of empowerment, something people deserve to have so they can defend their rights, life and potential in the face of challenges created by this paradigm.  Nations like Japan don't see much of a need for guns because their culture is less grounded in standing up in the face of adversity and "reaping what you sow" and more in being a part of a well-oiled machine.  People like Adam Lanza are bred from an environment that values success and influence over responsibility and cooperation, leading one to believe it's better to be a remembered villain than a forgotten hero.

[Stacy]

When Congress opens tomorrow, a bill will be introduced banning the ownership, transfer, or sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines (which is supposedly one of Obama's priorities). Time will tell if it will get killed in the House by the lobbyist bullies who have bribed their way into the government. I really hope it passes. If you want to hunt, use a rifle. A pistol's fine for self-defense. But there is absolutely no reason for any civilian to own a weapon like the Bushmaster .223 caliber AR-15, the gun used in the massacre. It looks like this:

With our current laws, anyone can waltz into a gun shop and buy one of these things. Something tells me that this is not what our founding fathers had in mind when they drafted the 2nd Amendment.

 

The Colorado Cinema Killer used the very same model.