Random Mass Shooting Thread

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: Random Mass Shooting Thread

Postby DreadNaught » Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:43 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:It appears that Trump is pushing for raising the minimum age requirement to buy guns from 18 to 21.

It's not clear whether he will do this at the federal level or try to induce states to do it themselves. It is also not clear what type of guns this applies to. So far I have read that it applies only to semi-automatic guns but I think that was just a guess.


It will be ironic if Trump ends up getting more gun control legislation passed than Obama or Clinton did.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11424
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 462 times
Been thanked: 487 times

Re: Random Mass Shooting Thread

Postby Brazen331 » Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:51 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:It appears that Trump is pushing for raising the minimum age requirement to buy guns from 18 to 21.

It's not clear whether he will do this at the federal level or try to induce states to do it themselves. It is also not clear what type of guns this applies to. So far I have read that it applies only to semi-automatic guns but I think that was just a guess.


It will be ironic if Trump ends up getting more gun control legislation passed than Obama or Clinton did.


I have no problem with raising the age to purchase semis and handguns to 21. If society deems you not responsible enough to drink until that age it seems reasonable.
Brazen331
 
Posts: 2615
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:25 am
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 42 times

Re: Random Mass Shooting Thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:56 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:It appears that Trump is pushing for raising the minimum age requirement to buy guns from 18 to 21.

It's not clear whether he will do this at the federal level or try to induce states to do it themselves. It is also not clear what type of guns this applies to. So far I have read that it applies only to semi-automatic guns but I think that was just a guess.


It will be ironic if Trump ends up getting more gun control legislation passed than Obama or Clinton did.



The Brady Bill and improving background checks was a big step for Clinton and the centralizing of background checks is still impacting us today (in a good way). He also had the assault weapons ban (even though it was later overturned)

Obama tried just a couple things in terms of gun control...and if i recall the only thing that passed was the social security disability thing for background checks...which ended up getting rescinded anyway. He did pass a law that expanded carry access into national parks if I recall but that certainly isn't gun control per se.


I do think the things that have come out recently for Trump (bump stock, raising the age limit) are more likely to stick if they do pass.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4630
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 228 times

Re: Random Mass Shooting Thread

Postby PrimeMinister » Wed Feb 21, 2018 1:17 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:It appears that Trump is pushing for raising the minimum age requirement to buy guns from 18 to 21.

It's not clear whether he will do this at the federal level or try to induce states to do it themselves. It is also not clear what type of guns this applies to. So far I have read that it applies only to semi-automatic guns but I think that was just a guess.


Are the majority of mass shootings committed by people under 21 years old? Im asking to understand what this law change is trying to fix.
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 7297
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 192 times

Re: Random Mass Shooting Thread

Postby HamBone » Wed Feb 21, 2018 1:17 pm

Brazen331 wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:
It will be ironic if Trump ends up getting more gun control legislation passed than Obama or Clinton did.


I have no problem with raising the age to purchase semis and handguns to 21. If society deems you not responsible enough to drink until that age it seems reasonable.


But, you can carry a gun at age 17 for the same society?
User avatar
HamBone
 
Posts: 2047
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:34 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 64 times

Re: Random Mass Shooting Thread

Postby Brazen331 » Wed Feb 21, 2018 1:27 pm

HamBone wrote:
Brazen331 wrote:
I have no problem with raising the age to purchase semis and handguns to 21. If society deems you not responsible enough to drink until that age it seems reasonable.


But, you can carry a gun at age 17 for the same society?


I’m all for raising the age to be sent to war to 21 as well if we can’t drink or buy guns until that age, but we all know the government will never do that. Like the above post stated, raising the age to purchase guns to 21 won’t fix anything as far as eradicating mass shootings. That’s impossible.

But times like these are when we pass new laws and restrictions. Is it mostly window dressing with no impact on anything? I think probably so. But what’s the alternative: having MB start shouting that we had our chance and he’s coming for our guns again?
Brazen331
 
Posts: 2615
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:25 am
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 42 times

Re: Random Mass Shooting Thread

Postby Kress » Wed Feb 21, 2018 1:40 pm

Instead of limiting guns or gun ownership, how about limiting the amount of media coverage shootings are allowed?
Image
User avatar
Kress
 
Posts: 3881
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:26 pm
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 209 times

Re: Random Mass Shooting Thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Feb 21, 2018 1:56 pm

PrimeMinister wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:It appears that Trump is pushing for raising the minimum age requirement to buy guns from 18 to 21.

It's not clear whether he will do this at the federal level or try to induce states to do it themselves. It is also not clear what type of guns this applies to. So far I have read that it applies only to semi-automatic guns but I think that was just a guess.


Are the majority of mass shootings committed by people under 21 years old? Im asking to understand what this law change is trying to fix.



I don’t know the numbers. I can think of a few that were. Whether those kids got their guns legally I don’t know.


I’m undecided on this legislation ... if it’s proposed I’d have to see the specifics.

I was just relaying what I said
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4630
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 228 times

Re: Random Mass Shooting Thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Feb 21, 2018 1:56 pm

Kress wrote:Instead of limiting guns or gun ownership, how about limiting the amount of media coverage shootings are allowed?




It’s a shame that news stations can’t do this themselves.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4630
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 228 times

Re: Random Mass Shooting Thread

Postby PrimeMinister » Wed Feb 21, 2018 2:01 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
PrimeMinister wrote:
Are the majority of mass shootings committed by people under 21 years old? Im asking to understand what this law change is trying to fix.



I don’t know the numbers. I can think of a few that were. Whether those kids got their guns legally I don’t know.


I’m undecided on this legislation ... if it’s proposed I’d have to see the specifics.

I was just relaying what I said


Not attacking you either. I’m just trying to understand the goal of the proposal. Initially I was inclined to say “Sure why not”, but the more I think about it the less it seems to make any sense.
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 7297
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 192 times

Re: Random Mass Shooting Thread

Postby PrimeMinister » Wed Feb 21, 2018 2:03 pm

Kress wrote:Instead of limiting guns or gun ownership, how about limiting the amount of media coverage shootings are allowed?


That’s a slippery slope. I get why you say it, but allowing the government to determine how much coverage the media is allowed to give to anything is a problem. The media should self regulate, but they’re clickbait whores so of course they won’t. I’m not sure how to fix that problem.
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 7297
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 192 times

Re: Random Mass Shooting Thread

Postby Kress » Wed Feb 21, 2018 2:08 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
Kress wrote:Instead of limiting guns or gun ownership, how about limiting the amount of media coverage shootings are allowed?




It’s a shame that news stations can’t do this themselves.




It makes you wonder if some media moguls actually rejoice when major stuff like this goes down. Think of the ratings THIS one will get! Get the graphics guys on the phone for an attemtion-grabbing logo, pair some music to it. and order 24 hour coverage that shows a loop of the one grainy video we have up in the corner!
Image
User avatar
Kress
 
Posts: 3881
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:26 pm
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 209 times

Re: Random Mass Shooting Thread

Postby Brazen331 » Wed Feb 21, 2018 2:15 pm

Kress wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:


It’s a shame that news stations can’t do this themselves.




It makes you wonder if some media moguls actually rejoice when major stuff like this goes down. Think of the ratings THIS one will get! Get the graphics guys on the phone for an attemtion-grabbing logo, pair some music to it. and order 24 hour coverage that shows a loop of the one grainy video we have up in the corner!


CNN is definitely rejoicing: they’ve gone from Russia Russia Russia to guns guns guns. The only way to minimize the coverage is to have Trump get some gun-limiting stuff implemented. If they think he might get a small victory or some credit in this arena they’ll tone it down
Brazen331
 
Posts: 2615
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:25 am
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 42 times

Re: Random Mass Shooting Thread

Postby Selmon Rules » Wed Feb 21, 2018 2:20 pm

Deja Entendu wrote:
NYBF wrote:
He shouldn't have been allowed to buy one in the first place, but you guys don't want to hear that.


This.

I would like to see local authorities involved in the background search.... FBI lists are great and all but I'm willing to bet that if this kids application had come across local police or sheriffs dept desk, they would have recognized the name and shot down his application until it could be properly investigated. They could easily be flagged and looked into by only extending the period from whatever the waiting period is now to a couple of weeks. Don't know about you guys but I am willing to wait longer if it means keeping guns out of the hands of nuts....
Sig currently being held hostage by Photobucket, will return next fall
User avatar
Selmon Rules
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:27 pm
Has thanked: 67 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Random Mass Shooting Thread

Postby Ken Carson » Wed Feb 21, 2018 2:32 pm

Selmon Rules wrote:
Deja Entendu wrote:
This.

I would like to see local authorities involved in the background search.... FBI lists are great and all but I'm willing to bet that if this kids application had come across local police or sheriffs dept desk, they would have recognized the name and shot down his application until it could be properly investigated. They could easily be flagged and looked into by only extending the period from whatever the waiting period is now to a couple of weeks. Don't know about you guys but I am willing to wait longer if it means keeping guns out of the hands of nuts....

There are plenty of reasonable things to be done. None of them will categorically prevent an evil person from hurting innocent people, but that’s not a reason to not take steps to make it that much more difficult.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 2927
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 155 times

Re: Random Mass Shooting Thread

Postby Selmon Rules » Wed Feb 21, 2018 2:38 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
Selmon Rules wrote:I would like to see local authorities involved in the background search.... FBI lists are great and all but I'm willing to bet that if this kids application had come across local police or sheriffs dept desk, they would have recognized the name and shot down his application until it could be properly investigated. They could easily be flagged and looked into by only extending the period from whatever the waiting period is now to a couple of weeks. Don't know about you guys but I am willing to wait longer if it means keeping guns out of the hands of nuts....

There are plenty of reasonable things to be done. None of them will categorically prevent an evil person from hurting innocent people, but that’s not a reason to not take steps to make it that much more difficult.

And that is all that realistically can be done.... You're never going to make our society completely safe from lunatics with some sort of weapon (gun, bomb, knife, etc...) but you can make it safer than it presently is....
Sig currently being held hostage by Photobucket, will return next fall
User avatar
Selmon Rules
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:27 pm
Has thanked: 67 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Random Mass Shooting Thread

Postby HamBone » Wed Feb 21, 2018 2:42 pm

Kress wrote:Instead of limiting guns or gun ownership, how about limiting the amount of media coverage shootings are allowed?


I like the idea...I just don't know how you can do that with the 1st Amendment. If people turned the channel...we could force the media outlets to stop making these douchebags icons.
User avatar
HamBone
 
Posts: 2047
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:34 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 64 times

Re: Random Mass Shooting Thread

Postby Brazen331 » Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:04 pm

HamBone wrote:
Kress wrote:Instead of limiting guns or gun ownership, how about limiting the amount of media coverage shootings are allowed?


I like the idea...I just don't know how you can do that with the 1st Amendment. If people turned the channel...we could force the media outlets to stop making these douchebags icons.


With the wall-to-wall coverage, I’m shocked these shootings don’t happen more often. It’s like they are broadcasting to every lunatic: ‘we could be obsessing over your uneventful existence next,’ ‘the entire country could know who you are,’ ‘ infamy could be yours’, what are you waiting for?’
Brazen331
 
Posts: 2615
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:25 am
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 42 times

Re: Random Mass Shooting Thread

Postby PrimeMinister » Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:06 pm

HamBone wrote:
Kress wrote:Instead of limiting guns or gun ownership, how about limiting the amount of media coverage shootings are allowed?


I like the idea...I just don't know how you can do that with the 1st Amendment. If people turned the channel...we could force the media outlets to stop making these douchebags icons.


This is true, but I don’t see how that happens unless the public just gets sick of hearing about tragedy. As it stands the American public has demonstrated an insatiable appetite for American tragedies.
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 7297
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 192 times

Re: Random Mass Shooting Thread

Postby HamBone » Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:29 pm

PrimeMinister wrote:
HamBone wrote:
I like the idea...I just don't know how you can do that with the 1st Amendment. If people turned the channel...we could force the media outlets to stop making these douchebags icons.


This is true, but I don’t see how that happens unless the public just gets sick of hearing about tragedy. As it stands the American public has demonstrated an insatiable appetite for American tragedies.


I agree with you...the media outlets push the tragedies because the American people eat it up.
User avatar
HamBone
 
Posts: 2047
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:34 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 64 times

Re: Random Mass Shooting Thread

Postby Kress » Thu Feb 22, 2018 12:58 am

HamBone wrote:
Kress wrote:Instead of limiting guns or gun ownership, how about limiting the amount of media coverage shootings are allowed?


I like the idea...I just don't know how you can do that with the 1st Amendment. If people turned the channel...we could force the media outlets to stop making these douchebags icons.



Second Amendment: "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." We're directly looking at not only limiting that right, but in fact expanding the limitations already in place. Why is the press different when it comes to mass shootings?
Image
User avatar
Kress
 
Posts: 3881
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:26 pm
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 209 times

Re: Random Mass Shooting Thread

Postby Brazen331 » Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:03 am

Kress wrote:
HamBone wrote:
I like the idea...I just don't know how you can do that with the 1st Amendment. If people turned the channel...we could force the media outlets to stop making these douchebags icons.



Second Amendment: "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." We're directly looking at not only limiting that right, but in fact expanding the limitations already in place. Why is the press different when it comes to mass shootings?


Because the media wants to create contempt for the 2nd Amendment.
Brazen331
 
Posts: 2615
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:25 am
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 42 times

Re: Random Mass Shooting Thread

Postby MJW » Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:30 am

Brazen331 wrote:
Kress wrote:

Second Amendment: "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." We're directly looking at not only limiting that right, but in fact expanding the limitations already in place. Why is the press different when it comes to mass shootings?


Because the media wants to create contempt for the 2nd Amendment.


Image
Image
User avatar
MJW
 
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:17 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 350 times

Re: Random Mass Shooting Thread

Postby MJW » Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:25 am

Image

The FBI couldn't identify the kid with the weird name, posting as himself on a public forum with an unmasked IP address.

These people could lose a game of Carmen Sandiego on "Stroke Victim" difficulty.
Image
User avatar
MJW
 
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:17 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 350 times

Re: Random Mass Shooting Thread

Postby DreadNaught » Thu Feb 22, 2018 7:47 am

It will start with banning Assault Rifles, then they'll go after ammo. Then some other dipshit will shoot up a school with a couple of pistols and they will go after those also. Because, after all who really needs a pistol?

People are allowing themselves to be manipulated b/c of a tragic event instead of facing the much more difficult problem we have in society.

We are already a mass surveillance state, now people want to willingly forefit their right to bear arms in the name safety.

My pops warned me about the inherent danger collectivists would have on this country. I used to think he was just being conspiratorial and read too many books on WW2 and the Cold War. But like most things pops is usually proven right over time.

This is about people control and being disguised as 'sensible gun control'. Make no mistake these same people saying "we just want to ban rifles" will be the sheep that demand pistols be illegal down the road.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11424
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 462 times
Been thanked: 487 times

Re: Random Mass Shooting Thread

Postby DreadNaught » Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:17 am

Came across a really informative thread on mass shootings last night from a guy named Ari Schulman who has done pretty extensive writing/research on the subject at hand. Read it here

Some thoughts on why we and our institutions may be failing to deal with mass shootings because we approach them as part of broader problems, not as a distinct and self-perpetuating plague. The problem with almost every narrative that mass shootings are “actually an X problem” is that X is usually so broad it’s like saying the real problem with asteroid impacts is that the Earth is so big. Take mental health: It’s easy to say “mass shootings are really a mental health problem” because, well, you’d have to be crazy to commit one, right? No, not really. James Knoll: “the literature does not reflect a strong link with serious mental illness.” Some, like the Virginia Tech shooter, had serious diagnosed or diagnosable mental illness like psychopathy or major depression. But the large majority don’t. And the vast majority of people with strong mental illness aren’t violent. “This is really about America’s love of guns” or “It’s just the most visible edge of our gun violence problem”: Again, important partial truths. But it doesn’t go that far in explaining mass shootings, which have moved opposite to gun ownership and overall gun homicide trends: (See link for data)

“Let’s put armed guards in every school”: Not outlandish, but 99.9% would never encounter a shooter, and the few who did would be taken by surprise after years of bored roaming the halls. Probably why there are already many cases of shooters not being stopped by them.

Mass shootings are a white (or Asian) problem? I’ve never seen this argument made in good faith, but it’s bunk. The racial distribution of mass shooters is basically the same as the general population. Male toxicity or a crisis of masculinity? Hard to put numbers on that, but just about any definition would have peg the problem far earlier than the late 1980s, when the active-shooting phenomenon really started to pick up in the United States. Mass shootings do have something to do with all of these factors (except race). But weakly. Saying they’re “actually about” any one thing misses the singular nature of this violence. It doesn’t go anywhere, rhetorically or practically or politically.

To the extent that mass shootings are about anything, it’s themselves. They have a distinct etiology: They’re a form of imitative apolitical terrorism, fueled by antisocial rage but spread by infamy-seeking and social contagion. LINK

Strategies with a chance of doing anything must, like past efforts to stop hijacking, terrorism, and assassinations, understand mass shootings as a distinct form of self-perpetuating violence, and strategically target them as such. LINK

There’s a theme with the AF failing to put the Sutherland shooter in the NCIC db, “protocols were not followed” re Parkland, local cops told of shooter’s Instagram but shrugging. It’s the butt-covering of institutions without a strategy, a clear sense of what to pursue and why. What’s failing, exactly? I wonder if, like intel agencies pre-9/11, mass shooting threats are lumped in to a vastly broader pool, responsibility spread across many agencies federal and local, so no single force is in charge, dedicated to spotting them. Dedicated local task forces like the ones described here strike me as having a great deal of potential. We should be thinking and talking about them more.
Image

There is, to my knowledge, no dedicated national law enforcement + criminologist group specifically looking for potential infamy shooters, for institutional holes that might impede finding them, or trying to educate local officials on warning signs. This may also offer a way to think more clearly about security reforms and the like -- Not arming teachers or lightly trained, bored rent-a-cops, but increasing both random and occasionally intel-based patrols by trained police who are specifically there to deter shooters. I think there are ways here to consider how at least some of the shooters for whom there were clear warning signs could have been kept from getting guns, or had the collection of an arsenal itself raise a red flag.

And finally, there is more reason than ever to believe we could slow the spread of mass shootings by reducing the contagion effect and the incentives for infamy. LINK
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11424
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 462 times
Been thanked: 487 times

Re: Random Mass Shooting Thread

Postby HamBone » Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:41 am

Kress wrote:
HamBone wrote:
I like the idea...I just don't know how you can do that with the 1st Amendment. If people turned the channel...we could force the media outlets to stop making these douchebags icons.



Second Amendment: "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." We're directly looking at not only limiting that right, but in fact expanding the limitations already in place. Why is the press different when it comes to mass shootings?


I understand what you're getting at...maybe some of the gun-control folks will chime in.
User avatar
HamBone
 
Posts: 2047
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:34 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 64 times

Re: Random Mass Shooting Thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:56 am

HamBone wrote:
Kress wrote:

Second Amendment: "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." We're directly looking at not only limiting that right, but in fact expanding the limitations already in place. Why is the press different when it comes to mass shootings?


I understand what you're getting at...maybe some of the gun-control folks will chime in.


“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Justice Scalia in 2008
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 11560
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 115 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Re: Random Mass Shooting Thread

Postby NYBF » Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:59 am

Does that mean I have to return my hunting tank?
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 5174
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 180 times
Been thanked: 428 times

Re: Random Mass Shooting Thread

Postby PanteraCanes » Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:00 am

DreadNaught wrote:Bad actors use social media to promote narratives that support their agenda.


Now I understand the popularity of twilight more.
User avatar
PanteraCanes
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:48 pm
Has thanked: 78 times
Been thanked: 40 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: beardmcdoug, Mountaineer Buc, The Outsider, uscbucsfan, Zarniwoop and 10 guests