Mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio

[Michael88]

Ah, the lets do the whole 'post a mini-14 with wooden furniture and say LOOK THIS ONE ISN'T SCARY LOOKING".

How about you post one with one of those 30 round magazines attached or mention that it is mechanically similar to the M1 battle rifle so you don't come off as disingenuous? I don't give two shell casings what the gun looks like, its a stupid aesthetic argument.

Yeah its a stupid argument, and it is not mine. You said military-esque and I just demonstrated that semi automatic firearm can be non-military-esque and have the same capabilities, making the term just nonsensical. The M1 battle rifle BTW was the main firearm of the US troops in WWII. You call that military-esque? Well, guess then my 1858 Enfield is also a military-esque as it was the main battle muzzle loader of the confederates back in the civil war.

I care what it can do.

So then why do you use terms like military-esque when you mean semi-automatic rifles? Back in the day military used muzzle loaders and bolt action rifles.

Behold, this is military-esque:

If it's a rifle-caliber gun that takes detachable box magazines with more than 30 rounds in them, they are prime crowd killers, semi-auto or not. These types of guns should not be freely available to nearly anyone off the street.

Oh boy, crowd killers. The terms get more emotion-laden by the minute, you could work for the news. Do you also call SUV's ''pedestrian squashers'' and any car with more than 200HP ''wheeled death?''. Because those kind of cars are involved in more deaths in a month than all mass shootings combined, so they should be given names that instill fear and panic when people talk about them, right?

Again, I'm not some "liberal snowflake" that knows nothing about guns. I used to go to the range at least once a week. I owned a Polish AK74, an FN FAL, a PS90, a Bulgarian AK74 (badass plum furniture) a Swiss K31, 2x Makarov PMs, 2x CZ52s. The pattern of all those weapons was military. They were designed originally as military weapons. To say they are not military-esque is wrong and willfully disingenuous, you reduce yourself to a talking point.

As I said, my 1858 enfield muzzle loader rifle is now military-esque. And why did you own appliances you think are so dangerous they should be banned and nobody should have them? Is this some weird split personality thing? Did you feel so tempted to do something bad with them? This is very weird.

Regardless, times are mercifully changing, and I do see the momentum behind some kind of tightened restrictions, so your point is moot and your mentality will be overriden eventually.

I actually think the opposite will happen, extremes always swing like a pendulum, now the pendulum has swung to the very left and its slowly starting to stall, it will come back soon, but sadly it wont stop in the middle. It never does because people can never settle with compromises, the always have to go all the way.
But people will come back to their senses and stop demonizing and restricting inanimate objects just because 0,0000001% of the users use them in a harmful way and the media blows up about it in a totally irrational magnitude. People will realize that this is not logical thinking and that there are FAR more pressing matters at hand. Like matters where tens of thousands of people die from each year, now THAT is something that keeps me awake at night because that is something that will almost certainly get me one day.

 

[Tornado]

So then why do you use terms like military-esque when you mean semi-automatic rifles?

Probably because he didn't expect anyone here would take that and try to make a stupid pedantic argument as if doing so was actually refuting what he was talking about; which was clearly about large capacity box magazine rifles with military lineage (which the Mini-14 is), and not anything the military may have used at one point in time.


Alas, there's always one.

 

[Michael88]

Probably because he didn't expect anyone here would take that and try to make a stupid pedantic argument as if doing so was actually refuting what he was talking about; which was clearly about large capacity box magazine rifles with military lineage (which the Mini-14 is), and not anything the military may have used at one point in time.

Aaaaaaand you're wrong.

They were designed originally as military weapons. I owned a Polish AK74, an FN FAL, a PS90, a Bulgarian AK74 (badass plum furniture) a Swiss K31, 2x Makarov PMs, 2x CZ52s. The pattern of all those weapons was military. They were designed originally as military weapons. To say they are not military-esque is wrong and willfully disingenuous, you reduce yourself to a talking point.

Muskets were designed as military weapons, longbows were. Military-esque is plain and simply a catch phrase used to dramatic effect to trigger negative emotions and sensationalism.

The mentioned K31 by the way is a bolt action rifle from the 30's, with a 6 round magazine.

If you use catchy terms just in order to get people emotional about them you have to expect them to put on the test.

 

[zzz_pt]

I thought I was reading something a BOT would come up with, not something someone with some common human sense would write. Lots of data making no sense, imo.

 

[Michael88]

I thought I was reading something a BOT would come up with, not something someone with some common human sense would write. Lots of data making no sense, imo.

Whats exactly isn't making any sense to you?

 

[zzz_pt]

Whats exactly isn't making any sense to you?

The same @Eunos_Cosmo and @Tornado pointed out.

 

[Michael88]

The same @Eunos_Cosmo and @Tornado pointed out.

You have to be more specific that that, say what you do not understand and I can explain it so you do. Which data is confusing to you?

 

[zzz_pt]

You have to be more specific that that, say what you do not understand and I can explain it so you do. Which data is confusing to you?

I don't think any particular data about guns is confusing (I don't know enough about the subject to even be confused by the details). What was confusing was the way you replied to the point @Eunos_Cosmo was making, which seemed straight to the point and clear. IMO you made a pointless conter-argument to a strawman, with lots of info about different guns that made no sense. From where I stand from, it looked a bit ridiculous, hence the BOT analogy. And then it got worse with the subquent response.

Maybe "military-esque" has quite a specific meaning to you, but it did seemed pedantic to pick up that word to try and dismantle the reasonable point @Eunos_Cosmo was making.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The problem is that you are trying to make an abstract point of little value to the conversation, generally. I use the term military-esque because I believe (based on the MO of these shooters and the equipment they use) these shooter's particular fantasy revolves around being an "operator". Part of being an operator is pretending you are some sort of soldier, that's why we often see them in fatigues with combat boots, with body armor and "tacti-cool" weapons. They want to be perceived as military-esque! (As an aside, I'm willing to bet this is an over-compensation for not being taken seriously in real life/not having any purpose because they are, at the end of the day, lonely dorks - which gets back to the mental health part of the equation, which is equally important.)

An AR15 with a high capacity magazine and bump fire stock has proven crowd-killing credentials. It's not even arguable.

 

[Michael88]

I don't think any particular data about guns is confusing (I don't know enough about the subject to even be confused by the details).

with lots of info about different guns that made no sense.

Now *I* am confused, you say you do not know much about the subject of guns to even get confused about it yet......you are confused about it?

Maybe "military-esque" has quite a specific meaning to you, but it did seemed pedantic to pick up that word to try and dismantle the reasonable point @Eunos_Cosmo was making.

Easily explained. Military-esque is in my opinion merely a word used to make things seem more dramatic, just like the term assault-rifle is flung around in media to get peoples attention and make things sound more dramatic. Its not a term that poster himself could clearly explain. That's all.

 

[Michael88]

The problem is that you are trying to make an abstract point of little value to the conversation, generally.

I am sorry you feel that way, but I think that point is actually important.

I use the term military-esque because I believe (based on the MO of these shooters and the equipment they use) these shooter's particular fantasy revolves around being an "operator".Part of being an operator is pretending you are some sort of soldier, that's why we often see them in fatigues with combat boots, with body armor and "tacti-cool" weapons. They want to be perceived as military-esque!

Sorry but I do not know any of the mass shooters well enough to do any mental profiling here. Many of the shooters mental issues and their motivations are unclear to this day, so I do not know how you can make assumptions like that.

(As an aside, I'm willing to bet this is an over-compensation for not being taken seriously in real life/not having any purpose because they are, at the end of the day, lonely dorks - which gets back to the mental health part of the equation, which is equally important.)

Now that I can agree with, people don't stop being dangerous when they have no access to firearms, the root causes need to be identified to deal with this problem, and no such problem should be dealt with simply banning or heavily restricting stuff. That's harmful hamfisted politics.

In fact, I remember reading an article that over 75% of the mass shooters were on just 3 specific psychiatric drugs. Sadly there seems to be little investigation on that side.

An AR15 with a high capacity magazine and bump fire stock has proven crowd-killing credentials. It's not even arguable.

Yes, but its not easy as that, you have to specify ''crowd''. Especially distance. A Bump-stock is woefully inaccurate already at a very short distance, and I am talking about so inaccurate that semi-automatic fire would be more effective. Its not as easy as that, to have a valid opinion about it you'd get your own hands on a bump-fire stock and not simply take things as they are reported by the media. I own guns and shoot them as I have previously mentioned, and I can say that more than half the facts stated in the news about guns are plain and simply wrong. As for the bump stock, all I can say is that its effectiveness is GREATLY overestimated.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I am sorry you feel that way, but I think that point is actually important.

What is the point? You will dramatically reject any attempt at classifying these types of firearms. Semi-automatic rifle with ability to take high-capacity ammunition magazines and with provisions for mounting accessories is a little long don't you think? I'd prefer they just be called Class III and require a license to buy them. You need them to be unclassifiable so they cannot be restricted. It's old, and it's rote, and it's uncompelling.

Sorry but I do not know any of the mass shooters well enough to do any mental profiling here. Many of the shooters mental issues and their motivations are unclear to this day, so I do not know how you can make assumptions like that.


Now that I can agree with, people don't stop being dangerous when they have no access to firearms, the root causes need to be identified to deal with this problem, and no such problem should be dealt with simply banning or heavily restricting stuff. That's harmful hamfisted politics.

In fact, I remember reading an article that over 75% of the mass shooters were on just 3 specific psychiatric drugs. Sadly there seems to be little investigation on that side.


Yes, but its not easy as that, you have to specify ''crowd''. Especially distance. A Bump-stock is woefully inaccurate already at a very short distance, and I am talking about so inaccurate that semi-automatic fire would be more effective. Its not as easy as that, to have a valid opinion about it you'd get your own hands on a bump-fire stock and not simply take things as they are reported by the media. I own guns and shoot them as I have previously mentioned, and I can say that more than half the facts stated in the news about guns are plain and simply wrong. As for the bump stock, all I can say is that its effectiveness is GREATLY overestimated.

Let's say that the Las Vegas concert was packed in around 3 SF/Person. That's a pretty dense crowd. Now spread that crowd over a site the size of an acre. Do you think you need a really good MOA to be effective? Of course not. You hold the trigger while aiming generally into the crowd. It's the whole point of machine guns and the bump stock-equipped AR15 with a 100rd magazine and tripod attempted to emulate. An MG42 would have been more effective, certainly. Thank GOD those are restricted, right? A Glock 19 would have been less effective. The guy fired more than 1,000 rounds in less than 10 minutes. Did the bump stock drastically improve the performance? Probably not. But firing into a dense crowd is not an exercise in precision. You do realize that, right?

 

[zzz_pt]

Now *I* am confused, you say you do not know much about the subject of guns to even get confused about it yet......you are confused about it?

I was confused by your reply to a non-point or a very parallel point that was not really relevant in the context. The whole info about different types of guns you posted seemed off point. That's what was confusing, not the data in itself.

Easily explained. Military-esque is in my opinion merely a word used to make things seem more dramatic, just like the term assault-rifle is flung around in media to get peoples attention and make things sound more dramatic. Its not a term that poster himself could clearly explain. That's all.

Those terms are accurate and were accurate in the context of @Eunos_Cosmo post. Maybe I'm too ignorant to understand the nuance, but it was clear to me why "military-esque" ("specifically semi auto rifles with large capacity magazines") made sense.

This on the other hand...

A bump stock allows you to shoot very fast, yes, but the construction makes the gun so inaccurate it basically makes it useless, it is nothing like a fully automatic rifle at all.

...makes no sense whatsoever, when someone is not shooting at specific targets but shooting in the direction of a large group of people (Las Vegas).

 

[Imari]

As for the bump stock, all I can say is that its effectiveness is GREATLY overestimated.

I'm not sure that it is.

Fully automatic arms exist in the military because volume of fire trumps accuracy most of the time. The happy medium between accuracy and volume of fire seems to be the three round burst, which is also popular. Full auto is good for suppressive fire, or just throwing a lot of lead down range and hoping for the best.

A bump stock is a poor man's version of a full auto weapon, but it's drawbacks don't really interfere that much with the intended purpose of fully automatic fire. Given the choice, obviously you'd prefer a weapon designed to be full auto from the start, because why give up accuracy if you don't have to. But if that's not an option (like if you're a civilian) a bump stock seems to me like a simple and effective choice to greatly raise your rate of fire if you're not that worried about accuracy. If you're firing into a crowd, say.

As others have pointed out, there's objective evidence that it can be effective if used appropriately. If you think it's effectiveness is overestimated, I'd question what you think other people are estimating it's effectiveness to be. It doesn't turn a rifle into a machine gun in general terms, but in specific circumstances the differences between a bump-stocked semi-auto and a full auto version of the same gun are pretty trivial. It just so happens that spree shooters set up those circumstances to their advantage.

 

[Danoff]

-I think obsession with "tacticool" firearms is intrinsic to the mass shooting fantasy.

Maybe, but I'd see it as a broad connection of the glorification of violence.

-The 'ease to deadliness' ratio of firearms (specifically semi auto rifles with large capacity magazines) is higher than other potential methods,

That's true, guns are high on the "ease to deadliness" ratio, if I understand what you're saying correctly. But cars might be even higher. I know you've sat at a stoplight watching people cross in front of you before. If you don't keep your foot at least off the accelerator, someone gets run over. That's one of the most common, easiest scenarios I can think of for the ability to kill others. If someone wants to kill indiscriminately, they're going to find ways. In the US, people find ways to kill without guns at a rate that exceeds other nations entire homicide counts (including guns) by multiple times over. In the US, we have a violence problem.

Imagine how less effective the Vegas gunman might have been if he was forced to use a lesser tool, like a handgun or even a CA-legal AR15. Maybe it was 10 people instead of 50+.

Or a more effective tool like a truck bomb or an airplane (which he owned) packed with gasoline or explosives, or a suicide vest. AR15s can be made automatic as well.

Or maybe, since he was well trained in firing weapons from long distances, he goes the DC sniper route and gets a car and a rifle and picks people off at gas stations. There's nothing intrinsic about an outdoor concert. These people often have multiple plans for how to kill lots of people. The Aurora CO theater shooter had planned out knife attacks on hikers in the nearby national park. He could have racked up a similar body count with a knife.

And by McVeigh being a 50 year event, I mean...hmm. He was an idealogue with a deep and long simmering feud with the institution of the US government. This gets tricky. I don't see him being on the same plane of existence as a twenty-something disaffected troll attacking people as fantasy. We may never be able to stop somebody like McVeigh. I hope we can either stop (mental health) or reduce the effectiveness (weapons control) of the counterstrike re-enactments.

McVeigh was a white supremacist who felt that the US government was doing wrong. The El Paso shooter was a white supremacist who felt that the US government was doing wrong. Yes, you can find differences between McVeigh's motivations and the El Paso shooter, but to pretend that they are really different is nonsense.

If you really want to get into the differences in motivations of each one of these mass murderers, you'd be able to pretend that each one is not just a 50 year event, but an event which had never occurred and which would never again occur. Bottom line, someone wanted to (generally indiscriminately) kill innocent people. In the case of El Paso, the intended victims were of a particular race, in the case of McVeigh the intended victims were at a particular location. In either case, a fairly arbitrary group was singled out and dehumanized.

I can't even be sure which of the two would have been easier to talk out of it (I mean, get them mental health professionals to help them re-humanize their fellow man).

I'm not sure that it is.

Fully automatic arms exist in the military because volume of fire trumps accuracy most of the time. The happy medium between accuracy and volume of fire seems to be the three round burst, which is also popular. Full auto is good for suppressive fire, or just throwing a lot of lead down range and hoping for the best.

A bump stock is a poor man's version of a full auto weapon, but it's drawbacks don't really interfere that much with the intended purpose of fully automatic fire. Given the choice, obviously you'd prefer a weapon designed to be full auto from the start, because why give up accuracy if you don't have to. But if that's not an option (like if you're a civilian) a bump stock seems to me like a simple and effective choice to greatly raise your rate of fire if you're not that worried about accuracy. If you're firing into a crowd, say.

As others have pointed out, there's objective evidence that it can be effective if used appropriately. If you think it's effectiveness is overestimated, I'd question what you think other people are estimating it's effectiveness to be. It doesn't turn a rifle into a machine gun in general terms, but in specific circumstances the differences between a bump-stocked semi-auto and a full auto version of the same gun are pretty trivial. It just so happens that spree shooters set up those circumstances to their advantage.

I kinda tee off on your setup above, most of this is not directed at you.

I agree with what you wrote and would also suggest that many pro-gun folks would be hard pressed by a simple question... do you think that it would be a good idea to release all regulation on fully automatic weapons? Should I be able to buy a full-automatic weapon from craigslist? Do you think the body count goes up? or down? if fully automatic weapons are easily purchased at your nearest walmart?

Obviously, I mean really quite obviously, guns (especially certain guns) represent a means to kill a large number of people very efficiently. Their potential for doing harm to others (especially certain guns, like automatic weapons or bump stock automatics) represents a high threshold for making sure that the person carrying it is capable of observing the right to life of their fellow man, and will do so.

Semi-automatic rifles do represent a large potential for inflicting harm on others. I think they are less monitored than they should be. But the anti-gun side needs to understand the context in which this is presented. Cars, bombs, airplanes, knives, etc. also represent a large potential for inflicting harm on others. It is important not to overstate the differences in effectiveness and utility between one of these modalities and another. Suppressing legal semi-automatic rifles purchases is not going make much of a difference in this problem (if any). In fact, it could easily make the problem worse. We should not pretend that there is a quick fix here. We should embrace the whole of the problem, recognize that overstepping in any one area is not only a bad idea, it is immoral, and attempt to work the whole thing instead of working the statistics.

 

[McLaren]

I’d have to agree with Eunos on McVeigh and the differences between him and most others. McVeigh, iirc, was an enlisted man at one point who became radicalized by a white supremacist, and retaliated with the federal building bombing bc of the FBI’s actions against the Waco group. McVeigh was more interested in revenge directly against the govt.

These other shooters have motives centered more around just not liking a specific group and feeling wronged in some way.

 

[PocketZeven]

I don't know, you'll have to ask someone that brings it up. I see no reason why it should be brought up ever. My suspicion is that people don't understand video games and are somehow afraid of them.



You make it sound like Americans have zero empathy when a mass shooting occurs. You also insinuate that Americans are cold and crass, which is not only flat out wrong, it's also pretty insulting. People in America, like people in other parts of the globe, do care about their own kind for the most part. I have to imagine Brits care about what happens to their fellow countrymen, at least for the most part.

You've also must have ignored the several times I've told you why I can't get to the bottom of the issue either. It's not that I don't care, but there is only so much time and money someone has and to research a complex issue takes a great deal of both. Not to mention I've never studied sociology, criminology, or psychology so those are barriers too. As I said, I can understand some of it at a rudimentary level, which I assume most Americans can too. But if you want me to give you some sort of meaningful reason backed up by data and facts, then it requires a deeper dive that would ultimately end up being someone's career.

I don't know how old you are, but you must understand how much it costs to undertake a study that would essentially last years.

Mass shootings are also not happening in greater numbers. They've remained roughly the same for decades, however, the number of people dying is climbing. So it's not like every year we can expect the number of shootings to multiply tenfold. It might seem like they are increasing in number though solely because the news chooses to cover them in greater detail.

You're also being incredibly naive if you think fixing one of the largest and most powerful governments in the world is easy. It's not and you can't reduce it to a simple "if it's broke then fix it." It's an asinine request and frankly one that leads me to believe you're just trolling for a response. I have to assume you're reasonably intelligent, you must understand why I can't fix anything even if I see there is an issue. It's not from a lack of caring either, it's from the size of the issue at hand and the fact we have 300 million people in the US.

You make it sound like americans are doing everything they can to solve the issue (which they aren't). Mass shootings are happening in greater numbers and a lot of americans refuse to adress the elephant in the room.

China has 1.4 billion people, guess how many mass shootings they have had in 2019? Ofcourse Baldgye doesnt think there is 1 solution it is extremely complicated. The rest of the world deals with mental health, videogames and the internet/darkweb just like the USA. The USA are not unique in that aspect. What is unique is how opioids and guns are treated and the number of Mass shootings. So that would be a good start to at least try to research their link with each other.

4 people killed in a mass stabbing... oh right, sorry, we don't care about that here.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/08/us/california-stabbing-attacks/index.html

I know you dont like to go into hypotheticals, but what if that person had a gun? 1 person killed 4 with a knife, in el Paso 1 person killed 22.

 

[Wolfe]

China has 1.4 billion people, guess how many mass shootings they have had in 2019?

Good opportunity to share this interesting photo out of the protests in Hong Kong:

 

[Danoff]

I’d have to agree with Eunos on McVeigh and the differences between him and most others. McVeigh, iirc, was an enlisted man at one point who became radicalized by a white supremacist, and retaliated with the federal building bombing bc of the FBI’s actions against the Waco group. McVeigh was more interested in revenge directly against the govt.

These other shooters have motives centered more around just not liking a specific group and feeling wronged in some way.

McVeigh's motives were centered around not liking a specific group and feeling wronged in some way. I don't see a big gap here. Can you explain better what you're thinking here? If it's focused on the government, I suppose you would group McVeigh more in line with Islamic Terrorism and not in line with White Supremacy terrorism? I'm seeing very similar shades of grey.

You make it sound like americans are doing everything they can to solve the issue (which they aren't). Mass shootings are happening in greater numbers and a lot of americans refuse to adress the elephant in the room.

No, you are refusing to address the elephant in the room, the importance of the 2nd amendment, the ability of everyday citizens to take control of their own personal defense and safety. When you say "everything they can" you mean including lighting a torch to a very valued right. It's the pretense that the 2nd amendment is worthless, or only a liability, that prevents more thoughtful discussion.

I know you dont like to go into hypotheticals, but what if that person had a gun? 1 person killed 4 with a knife, in el Paso 1 person killed 22.

What if they had a bomb? What if they had a truck? Someone in France killed 86 people with a truck. El Paso person only killed 22.

 

[Joey D]

You make it sound like americans are doing everything they can to solve the issue (which they aren't). Mass shootings are happening in greater numbers and a lot of americans refuse to adress the elephant in the room.

China has 1.4 billion people, guess how many mass shootings they have had in 2019? Ofcourse Baldgye doesnt think there is 1 solution it is extremely complicated. The rest of the world deals with mental health, videogames and the internet/darkweb just like the USA. The USA are not unique in that aspect. What is unique is how opioids and guns are treated and the number of Mass shootings. So that would be a good start to at least try to research their link with each other..

Which is not true. I don't think America is doing all it can, but that doesn't mean people don't care or want change. However, there are a few roadblocks in place:

One is whatever idea we land on, there's the question of who's going to pay for it? Yes, increasing access to mental healthcare is ideal, but how? It's not free. Same goes for training those to work in the mental health industry too. It's not quick or cheap schooling by any means. The second is getting people to agree on a solution. Everyone will think their way is best and you end up with a rather lengthy debate. Finally, there are existing laws to consider. The 2nd Amendment, whether you agree with it or not, is a fundamental part of America. Any solution that challenges it in any way will end up in court.

And I still don't believe for a second that baldgye thinks it's a complex solution. Everything posted leads me to believe he's under the impression it's a quick fix since nothing's been done about it yet.

I'm also a little confused why you think there's a link between opioids and mass shootings? Are people who are strung out a pain killer more likely to commit mass murder? I'm not so sure. If any medication has a link to mass shootings it's benzodiazepines and SSRIs. And yes, there is a problem in America with the overprescribing of opioids, benzodiazepines, and SSRIs...among many other drugs. The overprescribing of drugs though is a relatively easy fix and in many places you're seeing a crackdown on doctors who do this. In my tenure of working in healthcare, I've seen several physicians end up in handcuffs for essentially being a legal Narco.

 

[TenEightyOne]

What if they had a bomb? What if they had a truck? Someone in France killed 86 people with a truck. El Paso person only killed 22.

And how rare is each occurence? We know that using a truck can on some occasions kill more than someone using a gun. How often does it happen though? I refer you to the stats I posted somewhere else, 10 vehicle attacks in the last 5 years in Europe with a population of... 770,000? 4 in the USA during the same period with a population of 340,000. Vehicle attacks have pretty much the same frequency. Comparable to gun attacks in the US? Hardly.

 

[Danoff]

And how rare is each occurence? We know that using a truck can on some occasions kill more than someone using a gun. How often does it happen though? I refer you to the stats I posted somewhere else, 10 vehicle attacks in the last 5 years in Europe with a population of... 770,000? 4 in the USA during the same period with a population of 340,000. Vehicle attacks have pretty much the same frequency. Comparable to gun attacks in the US? Hardly.

It doesn't matter how rare they are because they're fungible. A gun event can turn into a truck event. What matters is the occurrence of a mass-murderer, not the specific modality they chose. The mass murder happens because of the occurrence of the crazy person.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The logical extension is baffling to me.

We must continue to allow semi-automatic, high capacity rifles to be legal and freely accessible so that they will be used to kill people instead of trucks.

 

[McLaren]

McVeigh's motives were centered around not liking a specific group and feeling wronged in some way. I don't see a big gap here. Can you explain better what you're thinking here? If it's focused on the government, I suppose you would group McVeigh more in line with Islamic Terrorism and not in line with White Supremacy terrorism? I'm seeing very similar shades of grey.

I thought it was pretty clear their differences. The motives behind McVeigh are incredibly different beyond these "8channer" shooters. He did not feel wronged, he felt the govt. betrayed its citizens.

For McVeigh, he did what he felt was a justified vendetta b/c of Waco. The Waco Siege to this day, still has controversy over the fire that led to 76 deaths after months of standoff and a failed initial assault. McVeigh was there before the assault began in support of the Branch Davidsons, and continued supporting them afterwards. He publicly shared the address of FBI sharpshooter Horiuchi and originally set on killing him in retaliation as Horiuchi had killed the wife of Randy Weaver while she held her child during Ruby Ridge and was there at Waco. During the standoff was when McVeigh learned through Nichols how to make explosives. When the siege ended, McVeigh had a compiled amount of reasons to retaliate; he knew what tear gas did to the women and children being a former military man, he believed the govt. had covered up evidence of the siege that would implicate their wrong doings, he went as far as to believe the ATF & FBI had betrayed the Declaration of Independence and openly shared his hatred for the agencies by giving out bullet-riddled FBI hats and pamphlets declaring the govt. openly fires on its citizens for months following. McVeigh traveled through the US exploring other govt. conspiracies at this time all whilst he and Nichols began stockpiling their explosive ingredients.

Because of a highly debated event that was the Waco Siege combined with McVeigh's military background, highly advertised anti-government views, and a budding relationship with fellow anarchist Nichols that taught him to make a bomb, McVeigh's attack on the federal building is a mass attack that has never been replicated by any of these mass shootings. To McVeigh, he was avenging the death of innocent women and children because he believed the govt.'s mishandling of Waco had caused that fire that led to those deaths, he believed the govt. had basically, openly killed all those people & covered it up. That is why he specifically picked that building, and felt remorse only for killing the children inside.

These past mass shooters have no such motive that could actually have a thought-provoking discussion about whether or not the ATF & FBI could have indirectly prevented the OKC Bombing had they handled Waco differently at that time. These mass shooters just decided that they needed to kill a bunch of innocent public people for crimes and openly picked locations they could carry out. They had no actual planning, all these previous anti-Democrat/Republican/Race/Religion posts didn't compare to McVeigh's dedication to being anti-govt., they were just open attacks for a fantasy mission in their head.

That's the difference. If you need more convincing, here's McVeigh's own words that what he did was retaliation for the wrong-doings of the govt. He even testifies that he felt the attack was an appropriate one based on how he saw the govt. order assaults in other countries.

I chose to bomb a federal building because such an action served more purposes than other options. Foremost, the bombing was a retaliatory strike; a counter attack, for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco.) From the formation of such units as the FBI's "Hostage Rescue" and other assault teams amongst federal agencies during the '80's; culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government - like the Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own citizens.

https://www.foxnews.com/story/mcveighs-apr-26-letter-to-fox-news

I don't believe I've seen one mass shooter explain their motives so deeply and as legitimately acceptable as McVeigh did.

The El Paso shooter was some dumbass upset about immigration. He didn't have any actual conflict, he just decided he was gonna try and stop immigration by killing Hispanics who never harmed anyone.

I know you dont like to go into hypotheticals, but what if that person had a gun? 1 person killed 4 with a knife, in el Paso 1 person killed 22.

1 man once killed 19 with a knife in Japan, whilst most most mass shootings this year in the US had 0-2 deaths. There's other factors involved that can determine death count than just, "a gun automatically ups the death toll".

 

[Danoff]

I thought it was pretty clear their differences.

There are lots of differences, I'm looking for important ones. Let's go through your breakdown.

The motives behind McVeigh are incredibly different beyond these "8channer" shooters. He did not feel wronged, he felt the govt. betrayed its citizens.

As does the anti-immigration mass-murderer.

For McVeigh, he did what he felt was a justified vendetta b/c of Waco. The Waco Siege to this day, still has controversy over the fire that led to 76 deaths after months of standoff and a failed initial assault. McVeigh was there before the assault began in support of the Branch Davidsons, and continued supporting them afterwards. He publicly shared the address of FBI sharpshooter Horiuchi and originally set on killing him in retaliation as Horiuchi had killed the wife of Randy Weaver while she held her child during Ruby Ridge and was there at Waco. During the standoff was when McVeigh learned through Nichols how to make explosives. When the siege ended, McVeigh had a compiled amount of reasons to retaliate; he knew what tear gas did to the women and children being a former military man, he believed the govt. had covered up evidence of the siege that would implicate their wrong doings, he went as far as to believe the ATF & FBI had betrayed the Declaration of Independence and openly shared his hatred for the agencies by giving out bullet-riddled FBI hats and pamphlets declaring the govt. openly fires on its citizens for months following. McVeigh traveled through the US exploring other govt. conspiracies at this time all whilst he and Nichols began stockpiling their explosive ingredients.

Because of a highly debated event that was the Waco Siege combined with McVeigh's military background, highly advertised anti-government views, and a budding relationship with fellow anarchist Nichols that taught him to make a bomb, McVeigh's attack on the federal building is a mass attack that has never been replicated by any of these mass shootings. To McVeigh, he was avenging the death of innocent women and children because he believed the govt.'s mishandling of Waco had caused that fire that led to those deaths, he believed the govt. had basically, openly killed all those people & covered it up. That is why he specifically picked that building, and felt remorse only for killing the children inside.

So in short, he didn't like government policy, felt that it was wronging the citizens... which is quite like an anti-immigration position.

These past mass shooters have no such motive that could actually have a thought-provoking discussion

Doesn't matter.

These mass shooters just decided that they needed to kill a bunch of innocent public people for crimes and openly picked locations they could carry out. They had no actual planning,

McVeigh's extra planning was partly a symptom of his selection of target. They didn't require as much planning because they didn't require such a high profile target. McVeigh's planning was only overcoming his own self-imposed handicap.

all these previous anti-Democrat/Republican/Race/Religion posts didn't compare to McVeigh's dedication to being anti-govt., they were just open attacks for a fantasy mission in their head.

You have to be just as dedicated to be ready to die.

If you need more convincing, here's McVeigh's own words that what he did was retaliation for the wrong-doings of the govt. He even testifies that he felt the attack was an appropriate one based on how he saw the govt. order assaults in other countries.

They all think they're justified. All of them. Or they wouldn't do it.

I don't believe I've seen one mass shooter explain their motives so deeply and as legitimately acceptable as McVeigh did.

Doesn't matter. The legitimacy or depth of thought has absolutely zero bearing here. In each case (White Supremacist Anti-White People Terrorism/Islamic Terrorism/White Supremacist Anti-Government Terrorism), the killer decides to take the lives of a wide swath of targets, and aims to kill as many as possible for the purpose of creating fear and sending a political message. They very similar acts. Any one of which could choose a different modality. McVeigh could have gone room by room with a rifle. It would have been slower and he'd have racked up fewer kills, but he could have. Vegas or El Paso could have used a truck bomb, it would have been more difficult and less personal, but it certainly was possible. Vegas even owned a plane that could have been used to crash on the crowd.

The El Paso shooter was some dumbass upset about immigration. He didn't have any actual conflict, he just decided he was gonna try and stop immigration by killing Hispanics who never harmed anyone.

It doesn't matter. He was willing to dedicate his life to it (he had to know he had a high likelihood of death). He was just as dedicated, dumbass or no.

McVeigh was "smarter" in his manifesto and took the time to develop more skill and and more sophisticated plan. His particular target called for that. If it hadn't perhaps he doesn't go to such lengths.

I'd rather McVeigh had used a gun, and I'd rather El Paso not develop explosives.

Edit:

I'm getting the impression that you're seeing McVeigh as a military attack on the US government instead of a civilian attack on civilians. I see it as the latter, and I think there are good reasons for that, for example McVeigh was a civilian at the time of the attack, used civilian materials, and carried the attack out on (almost entirely) a non-military target.

 

[McLaren]

I'm not going to get into a debate over every detail comparing McVeigh to these other mass shooters, esp. if your only take away from McVeigh's history was that he wasn't happy with government policy. Government policy isn't supposed to result in a controversy over 76 deaths.

You have an incredibly broad view point that narrows down to person A killed a bunch of civilians in a mass attack and person B killed a bunch of civilians in a mass attack, so clearly McVeigh and these other killers are similar. We'll disagree, and call it there.

I'm getting the impression that you're seeing McVeigh as a military attack on the US government instead of a civilian attack on civilians. I see it as the latter, and I think there are good reasons for that, for example McVeigh was a civilian at the time of the attack, used civilian materials, and carried the attack out on (almost entirely) a non-military target.

Maybe because that's exactly how he himself planned it as such. He specifically chose a government building. He specifically chose a bomb for a reason. His entire intent of attack was to replicate a US attack overseas. All the evidence & history through McVeigh's timeline show it as such even without his letters.

Additionally, borrowing a page from U.S. foreign policy, I decided to send a message to a government that was becoming increasingly hostile, by bombing a government building and the government employees within that building who represent that government. Bombing the Murrah Federal Building was morally and strategically equivalent to the U.S. hitting a government building in Serbia, Iraq, or other nations. (see enclosed) Based on observations of the policies of my own government, I viewed this action as an acceptable option. From this perspective, what occurred in Oklahoma City was no different than what Americans rain on the heads of others all the time, and subsequently, my mindset was and is one of clinical detachment. (The bombing of the Murrah building was not personal , no more than when Air Force, Army, Navy, or Marine personnel bomb or launch cruise missiles against government installations and their personnel.)

Perhaps in a different universe though, McVeigh will spend more time re-enlisting as a soldier, stealing a rocket, and bomb the building that way so you can see it differently from El Paso....

 

[CopperySinger]

HATE was installed in these terrorists minds at young ages. Specifically the ones that kills for the sake of white supremacy. Careless racist parents discarded their own children to brainwash them to carry out these crimes when they get older. Sending them mild messages to stir hate, for an example 'hey Johnny you see these black and brown people are hurting our family by being in our country, what are you going to do about it when you get older?' Or racist parents ignore the strange behavior of their children and take no responsibility for that crazy child when he carries out a mass shooting. This type of parent does not have faith or fear in a higher power, but instead they fear people of a different color so they crave to eradicate all others who does not feel inferior to the white person. Video games, politics, guns or other racist classmates all are not the triggers of this evil behavior; The parents created these monsters with lack of love dignity and moral respect for their own child. This problem will never sease if America keeps failing to realize this fact.

Edited: Also I see the republican and democrat debate on guns. Republicans seem numb and complacent about the gun issue and democrats appear to think its the gun that pulled the trigger. Imo neither party is really trying to solve the problem, and trump only wants to claim mental illness so they can give the monsters 'feel good' medicine, Then many more mass shootings will occur because then they will have an excuse, in the same way some veterans lie about having ptsd or others fake pshychotic mental illnesses in order to gain a pass from the government and support for their evil deeds. Trumps idea will result in the worst outcome and he knows it smh. Dems and repubs constantly argue over these pointless idiotic gun issues that are not directly contributing to this problem while trumps 'mental illness' claim seems intentionally thought out to make matters worse.

The end solution is simple, since under 25 Is the age of majority of these national terrorists and in this generation, past 25 is usually the age of adult maturity, penalize the mass shooters parents too and encourage schools and dss to identify and address these abusive issues during early childhood.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It doesn't matter how rare they are because they're fungible.

Implying that there's no problem with guns in a country where gun crime is at such a horrendous level because "they might use trucks instead" seems a little facile. Does it seem to you that a country where people can legally stand in a shop queue with loaded weapons on display about their person is fostering an in-your-face "kill or be killed" mentality in a way that a country that restricts gun carrying to sporting/working use does not?

 

[PocketZeven]

McVeigh's motives were centered around not liking a specific group and feeling wronged in some way. I don't see a big gap here. Can you explain better what you're thinking here? If it's focused on the government, I suppose you would group McVeigh more in line with Islamic Terrorism and not in line with White Supremacy terrorism? I'm seeing very similar shades of grey.



No, you are refusing to address the elephant in the room, the importance of the 2nd amendment, the ability of everyday citizens to take control of their own personal defense and safety. When you say "everything they can" you mean including lighting a torch to a very valued right. It's the pretense that the 2nd amendment is worthless, or only a liability, that prevents more thoughtful discussion.



What if they had a bomb? What if they had a truck? Someone in France killed 86 people with a truck. El Paso person only killed 22.

The importance of the 2nd amendment applies only to Americans though. The rest of the developed don’t have it. That is one of the reasons why there are less mass shootings in the rest of the world.

You would make a great point with the truck argument if it would happen as often as mass shootings do. If truck mass killings would happen more often. Guess what they don’t. Just like bombings don’t happen as much as mass shootings. It is worth into looking into why.

Which is not true. I don't think America is doing all it can, but that doesn't mean people don't care or want change. However, there are a few roadblocks in place:

One is whatever idea we land on, there's the question of who's going to pay for it? Yes, increasing access to mental healthcare is ideal, but how? It's not free. Same goes for training those to work in the mental health industry too. It's not quick or cheap schooling by any means. The second is getting people to agree on a solution. Everyone will think their way is best and you end up with a rather lengthy debate. Finally, there are existing laws to consider. The 2nd Amendment, whether you agree with it or not, is a fundamental part of America. Any solution that challenges it in any way will end up in court.

And I still don't believe for a second that baldgye thinks it's a complex solution. Everything posted leads me to believe he's under the impression it's a quick fix since nothing's been done about it yet.

I'm also a little confused why you think there's a link between opioids and mass shootings? Are people who are strung out a pain killer more likely to commit mass murder? I'm not so sure. If any medication has a link to mass shootings it's benzodiazepines and SSRIs. And yes, there is a problem in America with the overprescribing of opioids, benzodiazepines, and SSRIs...among many other drugs. The overprescribing of drugs though is a relatively easy fix and in many places you're seeing a crackdown on doctors who do this. In my tenure of working in healthcare, I've seen several physicians end up in handcuffs for essentially being a legal Narco.

The connections between opioids and mass shootings could be mental health. It is a good idea to look into that.

Good opportunity to share this interesting photo out of the protests in Hong Kong:

View attachment 842291

I fail to see the relevance on some random photo. Fact of the matter is that China has much more people yet don’t have 250+ mass shootings in 2019 thus far. It would be good to look into why China does not have so many mass shootings.

1 man once killed 19 with a knife in Japan, whilst most most mass shootings this year in the US had 0-2 deaths. There's other factors involved that can determine death count than just, "a gun automatically ups the death toll".

That is quite anecdotal. If mass shootings happened as often as that supposed incident in Japan, I wouldn’t be addressing mass shootings the same way.

 

[Danoff]

Maybe because that's exactly how he himself planned it as such.

That's how they all see themselves. Islamic Terrorists are literally religious soldiers.

He specifically chose a government building. He specifically chose a bomb for a reason. His entire intent of attack was to replicate a US attack overseas. All the evidence & history through McVeigh's timeline show it as such even without his letters.

We've never attacked anyone with guns overseas? Only bombs? When did we use a truck bomb overseas?

What you're trying to establish is that there is something about McVeigh that suggests that he would not use a gun. I don't see that at all. I see characteristics about the McVeigh situation that suggest that he would prefer a bomb, especially given his target, but there is zero about McVeigh's case that suggests to me that other weapons would not be viable options to him. I think McVeigh absolutely would have used a gun if he could not have pulled off the truck bomb.

The other thing your'e trying to establish is that there was something about El Paso that suggests he would NOT use a bomb. I don't see that at all either. I see characteristics about the El Paso situation that suggest that he would prefer a gun. But there is zero about the El Paso situation that suggests to me that other weapons would not have been viable options. I think El Paso absolutely would have used a bomb if he could have pulled it off, and for some reason a gun had not been available.

My point is, they're flexible. In this discussion, I don't see a distinction between the types of events.

Perhaps in a different universe though, McVeigh will spend more time re-enlisting as a soldier, stealing a rocket, and bomb the building that way so you can see it differently from El Paso....

I'd prefer if he just didn't kill people, that seems like an easier way to see it differently. We can discuss what it would take for it to be a military attack on the US government, but I think that's farther than the thread deserves to go.

Implying that there's no problem with guns in a country where gun crime is at such a horrendous level because "they might use trucks instead" seems a little facile.

I didn't.

Does it seem to you that a country where people can legally stand in a shop queue with loaded weapons on display about their person is fostering an in-your-face "kill or be killed" mentality in a way that a country that restricts gun carrying to sporting/working use does not?

I'd be interested to know why you chose the word "loaded" in there. It sounds like you have a link that I'd be interested in seeing. I think that fostering an atmosphere of "kill or be killed" helps gun shops do business. When I was on hold with ADT (a security alarm company) they played crime statistics at me instead of hold music. Fear can help sell.

The importance of the 2nd amendment applies only to Americans though. The rest of the developed don’t have it.

It's a human right, everyone has it.

That is one of the reasons why there are less mass shootings in the rest of the world.

Shooting/stabbing/bomb/arson... it makes no difference. I'm not interested in squashing one statistic only to have it show up somewhere else. I'd rather address the actual issue.

You would make a great point with the truck argument if it would happen as often as mass shootings do. If truck mass killings would happen more often. Guess what they don’t. Just like bombings don’t happen as much as mass shootings. It is worth into looking into why.

I've already explained why (at least 3 times) in this thread. It's not hard to figure out. And it has nothing to do with guns magically poisoning the minds of their owners. It has everything to do with the selection bias of the group of people that want to kill.

That is quite anecdotal. If mass shootings happened as often as that supposed incident in Japan, I wouldn’t be addressing mass shootings the same way.

Serious question... to everyone in this thread. I've explained it so many times, and I still get what I consider to be almost unbelievable hangups on the weapon of choice. Why?

Someone decides they want to kill people indiscriminately, and you guys want to focus on which weapon they picked. Does that not seem to have rather missed the point to you guys? Someone decided they wanted to kill people indiscriminately!!!!!!! That's the point.

Do you honestly, truly believe that Vegas wouldn't have committed his crime without a bump stock? That McVeigh would have been an upstanding citizen without a truck full of fertilizer? That Nice France wouldn't have killed people without a truck? That El Paso starts hugging Mexicans if he has no gun? That Christchurch goes back to work and pays his taxes if he doesn't have a gun?

These are murderous people. People who have decided they are ready to sacrifice their lives to kill others indiscriminately. That's the problem, and it's the problem regardless of how they go about doing it. And by the way, it's a small problem within the general problem of homicide that the US has a big issue with.

Yes, we should pay attention to how they do it and take steps to improve safety. I'm not against that at all. But we should not forget the law abiding citizens when we do it. To all of you who are hung up on guns (still) and I know you are, let's go over this one again.

Check out that green bar. Even if you could eliminate the red bar by banning guns entirely (which you can't), the green bar is still longer than every country on the list except one. Our non-gun homicide rate is more than most countries entire homicide rate. Ban guns entirely and does the red bar go down? Maybe. Does the green bar go up? Almost for sure. If you could magically wave a wand and remove all guns from the US, the red bar would disappear. But guess what, all of those criminals are still going to commit crimes, and people are still going to die. The total (green+red) might go down, but the green bar is going to grow. Other types of crime would grow too.

Even if you could magically eliminate all guns and prevent all of the criminals in those red statistics from using any other method to kill people, and prevent anyone else from committing new homicides.... the US would still have one of the worst homicide rates among developed nations.

What does it take to get you to see that the homicide problem in the US is deeper than the weapon used?