Mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio

[Daz555]

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?

I don't see how this matters. There is an opportunity to drastically cut the US murder rate by getting guns under control. Other factors should be tackled of course - but alongside gun control, not instead of.

 

[Exorcet]

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.

I think the point is more that we could prevent killings with trucks and guns (and anything else) if we removed the motivation to kill in the first place. Additionally semi auto high capacity rifles do no harm when they're not used to kill people. You can argue about the feasibility of directly influencing the rate of violence of the population as a whole, but I don't think it's hard to see the actual argument being made.

 

[PocketZeven]

It's a human right, everyone has it.



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.



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.



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?

Not the same way the US has the right to own a gun. Guns are more extensively regulated in the rest of the developed world. As far as I know only a few countries like the USA have a constitution that has a specific amendment to protect the right to own one.

We have had this discussion many times, but the problem with saying that the problem is to battle selection bias/ mental health issues, yet rightwing violence does not happen in numbers like in the USA as well.

The reason for focusing on the weapons of choice, because the issue discussed in this thread is mass shootings. They do not happen in the frequency like in other countries. The premise for the rest of the developed world is that murderer with easy acces to guns is more dangerous then one with less acces to guns. Global statistics reflect that, but admittedly it is a more complicated issue. It is strange for many outside the USA why specifically conservative americans and some sympathisants refuse to see the connection between gunregulation and mass shootings. It is for manby of us very obvious. If you treat unstable mental health people as children, would you rather have that child have acces to dangerous guns? No you would rather prohibit that child to own at least if he/she can prove that he/she can properly own one.

By reducing that red bar (which far exceeds nr. 2) you would reduce the number. That US red bar is as long as all the other combined. The green one not. The red is an anomaly that is out of the ordinary (in the extreme), the green one is closer to the average. The issue in the US is not unique. What does make it unique to america is the way they are carried out.

edit 2: Why do you think mass shootings do not happen in the same volume in the rest of the world? The US is nr 1 in mass shootings, yet nr. 98 in overall intentional homicides.

I think the point is more that we could prevent killings with trucks and guns (and anything else) if we removed the motivation to kill in the first place. Additionally semi auto high capacity rifles do no harm when they're not used to kill people. You can argue about the feasibility of directly influencing the rate of violence of the population as a whole, but I don't think it's hard to see the actual argument being made.

That is another issue and one that all other countries are battling. Violence is not exclusive to the USA, the high numbers of mass shootings are. The USA is not the most violent country in the world, but is the country with the most mass shootings in the world.

edit: If other parts of the world react to mass shootings by stricter regulation succesively, then why actively battle it as a one of the possible solutions to reduce mass shootings.

 

[Exorcet]

That is another issue

What is another issue?

I didn't highlight issues, I just pointed out something closer to what was actually being said that the post I quoted implied.

Violence is not exclusive to the USA, the high numbers of mass shootings are. The USA is not the most violent country in the world, but is the country with the most mass shootings in the world.

It still has a relatively high level of violence even if you exclude guns. Regardless, if those guns are kept out of the hands of killers then any gun problem is solved isn't it?

edit: If other parts of the world react to mass shootings by stricter regulation succesively, then why actively battle it as a one of the possible solutions to reduce mass shootings.

There is more to consider than whether a solution works or not. It is as important to make sure that rights are respected in the process. If a morally acceptable solution is put forward I have no problem with it.

 

[McLaren]

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.

You are clearly, purposely deciding to not read.

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.)

I think McVeigh absolutely would have used a gun if he could not have pulled off the truck bomb.

Incorrect. Shooting was his first option and that was too difficult. This alone should separate him from other mass shooters.

McVeigh later said he considered "a campaign of individual assassination," with "eligible" targets including Attorney General Janet Reno, Judge Walter S. Smith Jr. of Federal District Court, who handled the Branch Davidian trial, and Lon Horiuchi, a member of the FBI hostage-rescue team who shot and killed Vicki Weaver in a standoff at a remote cabin at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992.[42] He said he wanted Reno to accept "full responsibility in deed, not just words."[43] Such an assassination seemed too difficult,[44] and he decided that since federal agents had become soldiers, it was necessary to strike against them at their command centers.[45] According to McVeigh's authorized biography, he ultimately decided that he would make the loudest statement by bombing a federal building. After the bombing, he was ambivalent about his act; as he expressed in letters to his hometown newspaper, he sometimes wished he had carried out a series of assassinations against police and government officials instead.[46]

His remorse at the end again, came because children died.

As said, we will disagree on McVeigh compared to other mass shooters. You can attest that they're similar, but McVeigh's open history, planning, & background is unique.

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.

You're the one proposing a hypothetical that a gun automatically ups the toll count because the man who committed 4 deaths with a knife would have achieved greater numbers like the El Paso shooter if he used a gun.

There's other circumstances to account for. Location is a major one.

 

[zzz_pt]

I think the point is more that we could prevent killings with trucks and guns (and anything else) if we removed the motivation to kill in the first place. Additionally semi auto high capacity rifles do no harm when they're not used to kill people. You can argue about the feasibility of directly influencing the rate of violence of the population as a whole, but I don't think it's hard to see the actual argument being made.

The issue I see with this line of thought is that it allows for the rationalization of gun violence and specifically mass shootings and the easy access to semi-auto high capacity guns, while the solution to "the motivation to kill in the first place" is not even close to being found let alone addressed. If the "motivation to kill" is far from being addressed and resolved, you'd think taking measures concerning the access to specific guns that make it easy to act on that motivation in the first place, would be a good idea.

Of course, not the only action to take, but one of many.

 

[Exorcet]

The issue I see with this line of thought is that it allows for the rationalization of gun violence and specifically mass shootings and the easy access to semi-auto high capacity guns, while the solution to "the motivation to kill in the first place" is not even close to being found let alone addressed. If the "motivation to kill" is far from being addressed and resolved, you'd think taking measures concerning the access to specific guns that make it easy to act on that motivation in the first place, would be a good idea.

Of course, not the only action to take, but one of many.

I agree. I'm not saying that we can't can't focus on guns specifically. My own smart gun idea already does that. It doesn't address the underlying violence issue, it's just something that can make guns safer.

 

[Danoff]

I don't see how this matters. There is an opportunity to drastically cut the US murder rate by getting guns under control. Other factors should be tackled of course - but alongside gun control, not instead of.

Gun control will have limited usefulness in the context I presented. I think we should and can do more, but that we should measure it carefully and balance it against human rights. Because the effect of gun control is not what some like to pretend. We have lots of gun control, and a lot of it doesn't work.

Not the same way the US has the right to own a gun. Guns are more extensively regulated in the rest of the developed world. As far as I know only a few countries like the USA have a constitution that has a specific amendment to protect the right to own one.

Your right to bear arms might be infringed by your government, but it is still your right.

The reason for focusing on the weapons of choice, because the issue discussed in this thread is mass shootings. They do not happen in the frequency like in other countries.

That's right, in France people were mowed down by a truck, not shot. Big difference. Not really.

The premise for the rest of the developed world is that murderer with easy acces to guns is more dangerous then one with less acces to guns.

Unless it's a bomb. Or maybe an aircraft, or box cutters in the case of 9/11. Of course that truck in france killed more than the gun in El Paso... didn't I already mention that to you yesterday?

It is strange for many outside the USA why specifically conservative americans and some sympathisants refuse to see the connection between gunregulation and mass shootings.

Mass shootings. Yes. Mass killings not as much.

would you rather have that child have acces to dangerous guns? No you would rather prohibit that child to own at least if he/she can prove that he/she can properly own one.

Actually we assume that people can properly and safely operate a firearm after age 18. I think maybe that assumption is not warranted.

By reducing that red bar (which far exceeds nr. 2) you would reduce the number.

Maybe some, but not by the amount the red bar is reduced. The green bar will grow.

That US red bar is as long as all the other combined. The green one not. The red is an anomaly that is out of the ordinary (in the extreme), the green one is closer to the average. The issue in the US is not unique. What does make it unique to america is the way they are carried out.

The green bar is an anomaly. The red bar is also an anomaly for the same reason. If you weren't so focused on the murder weapon you would see the connection, but you can't see past the choice of tool and I cannot believe I'm still having to explain this point.

edit 2: Why do you think mass shootings do not happen in the same volume in the rest of the world? The US is nr 1 in mass shootings, yet nr. 98 in overall intentional homicides.

Shootings... well, that'd be the availability of guns. Of course shootings is not important. Murder is important, and that has more to do with culture.

Violence is not exclusive to the USA, the high numbers of mass shootings are.

They're both wild in the US.

The USA is not the most violent country in the world, but is the country with the most mass shootings in the world.

Shootings, not homicide. Still so absurdly focused on the weapon.

edit: If other parts of the world react to mass shootings by stricter regulation succesively, then why actively battle it as a one of the possible solutions to reduce mass shootings.

Because the weapon of death is not what's important, what's important is the death. Changing mass shootings into mass bombings or car homicide is not helpful. It accomplishes nothing. In fact, it might make things worse. Also gun rights are valuable.

You are clearly, purposely deciding to not read.

Uh... no I think you misunderstand me.

Incorrect. Shooting was his first option and that was too difficult. This alone should separate him from other mass shooters.

He considered assassination of specific individuals, that's not the same thing at all. So it doesn't refute what I'm saying. Yes he considered assassination harder than indiscriminate bombing, I'm sure it is. What I'm saying is that there is nothing in the McVeigh history that suggests to me that if the bomb were not available to him, he would not have been an indiscriminate shooter. So I propose that McVeigh's list of options might have looked something like this:

1) Assassination
2) Indiscriminate bombing at a specific high profile target
3) Indiscriminate shooting at a specific high profile target
4) Indiscriminate bombing at a lower profile target
5) Indiscriminate shooting at a lower profile target

The issue I see with this line of thought is that it allows for the rationalization of gun violence and specifically mass shootings and the easy access to semi-auto high capacity guns, while the solution to "the motivation to kill in the first place" is not even close to being found let alone addressed. If the "motivation to kill" is far from being addressed and resolved, you'd think taking measures concerning the access to specific guns that make it easy to act on that motivation in the first place, would be a good idea.

Of course, not the only action to take, but one of many.

I propose licensing. I'm not arguing against taking measures concerning access.

What I'm saying is that we should take care not to curtail the rights of innocent people even though we don't know if it will do any good and even though it amounts to a bandaid over a problem we don't understand, just so that we can slosh the mortality statistics into a different bin and claim we did something. That sounds a little like Australia.

 

[McLaren]

What I'm saying is that there is nothing in the McVeigh history that suggests to me that if the bomb were not available to him, he would not have been an indiscriminate shooter.

He would not have done such a thing; you are again, not paying attention to his confessions & letters he wrote. McVeigh had specific targets and reasoning behind his attack. His motives did not include shooting the first people he saw in the building like a typical mass shooter. He has said it himself, he sometime wished he had attempted separate assassinations instead of the bombing. McVeigh had no intention of killing random people like a mass shooter, the innocent inside were merely casualties of war to him & he had remorse for their children.

 

[mustafur]

Gun control will have limited usefulness in the context I presented.

Citation needed.

US has a higher Crime rate then other 1st world countries, but saying there will be a limited effect by removing guns can't be proven.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

HATE was installed in these terrorists minds at young ages. Specifically the ones that kills for the sake of white supremacy.

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,

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.

 

[Danoff]

He would not have done such a thing; you are again, not paying attention to his confessions & letters he wrote. McVeigh had specific targets and reasoning behind his attack. His motives did not include shooting the first people he saw in the building like a typical mass shooter. He has said it himself, he sometime wished he had attempted separate assassinations instead of the bombing. McVeigh had no intention of killing random people like a mass shooter, the innocent inside were merely casualties of war to him & he had remorse for their children.

That was my point. I've made that point in these threads about 2 dozen times, that he had remorse for the collateral damage that was the daycare in the building. In fact, this brings me back to my entire point, which is that if McVeigh had to resort to shooting up the OK City building instead of bombing it, that he'd have skipped the daycare. I'm really quite surprised you think that because he had plans for assassination which devolved into bombing and killing indiscriminately an entire building full of people, that he was incapable or would have stopped short of going through the building with a gun. The fact that he had specific targets in mind does not preclude that. Hell, you bolded that point for me:

Such an assassination seemed too difficult,[44] and he decided that since federal agents had become soldiers, it was necessary to strike against them at their command centers

It's right there. Federal agents are soldiers. Everyone in that building (aside from the children) is a viable target.

Citation needed.

US has a higher Crime rate then other 1st world countries, but saying there will be a limited effect by removing guns can't be proven.

I'm saying that because the US has a problem with homicide (gun and non-gun homicide) that homicide will continue in the absence of guns. So, if you'll follow along for a moment. We have tons of people who commit murder every year. Some of them use guns, some of them do not. If you took away the legal guns from one ones who do, some of them would still commit murder without the gun. Presumably the rest would realize the error of their ways and become fine upstanding citizens. So the green bar grows, but perhaps not as much as the red bar shrunk. Some of them would still commit murder with illegally obtained guns, not because guns, but because homicidal. So the red bar does not go away.

So you enact gun control and maybe the red bar shrinks some and the green bar grows. That's what I'd call "limited effectiveness". Here's a citation that makes this conclusion somewhat inescapable.

Roughly half of gun crime is with illegal guns.

You might be able to counter-argue that over time the lack of legal guns will translate to a reduction in illegal guns. But keep in mind that they flood in from other countries.

Here's the other part...

"Most recently (I considered) serial murder via a cellphone, stun gun and folding knife at national forests," he wrote.

Mass murderers (and other types of murders) consider their options when it comes to weapons. In this case the shooter had an alternate plan for stabbing. So if you could keep guns out of the hands of at least some of these people, they would go on to commit homicide with something else. Again, that's "limited effectiveness" in light of a problem of violence. Presumably the rest of them would go on to become fine upstanding citizens.

 

[PocketZeven]

Your right to bear arms might be infringed by your government, but it is still your right.



That's right, in France people were mowed down by a truck, not shot. Big difference. Not really.



Unless it's a bomb. Or maybe an aircraft, or box cutters in the case of 9/11. Of course that truck in france killed more than the gun in El Paso... didn't I already mention that to you yesterday?



Mass shootings. Yes. Mass killings not as much.



Actually we assume that people can properly and safely operate a firearm after age 18. I think maybe that assumption is not warranted.



Maybe some, but not by the amount the red bar is reduced. The green bar will grow.



The green bar is an anomaly. The red bar is also an anomaly for the same reason. If you weren't so focused on the murder weapon you would see the connection, but you can't see past the choice of tool and I cannot believe I'm still having to explain this point.



Shootings... well, that'd be the availability of guns. Of course shootings is not important. Murder is important, and that has more to do with culture.



They're both wild in the US.



Shootings, not homicide. Still so absurdly focused on the weapon.



Because the weapon of death is not what's important, what's important is the death. Changing mass shootings into mass bombings or car homicide is not helpful. It accomplishes nothing. In fact, it might make things worse. Also gun rights are valuable.

To clarify I am not for declaring law abiding citizens to be criminals, because they own assualt weapons. I am for stricter regulation and registration (as we discussed in other threads).

What happened in france was not a occurance that happens structurally more often, unlike Mass shooting in the USA. If Mass truck killings were happening in higher frequency action would be taken, especially in a country like france. To accurately compare the lethalness more fairly is the deaths per capita over the past years by truck compared to mass shootings.

It is usefull is to explore if mass killings in the US would reduce overal if mass shootings are reduced.

Something we agree on is that use of a weapon (like driving a motorvehicle) should come with responsibility. Licensing and mandotory firearm training are legitimate options and perhaps a way to detect potential misuse.

The USA does not stand out in violence as much as in mass shootings. It is absurd to not to explore the reason why that is. Even more absurd is to ignore the data and prematurely conclude the weapon of choice bares no relevance.

To go into another hypothetical. Would mass bombings increase if C4 was made legal? The weapon of choice is relevant to mass shootings. While there is no way to 100% conclude if the casualty rate would be less with stricter regulation. But you also cant conclude that the weapon of choice would not have mattered at all.

You are concluding that mass shootings, mass bombings and car homicide are interchangable. That is a valid theory, however that should mean that bombings, car homicide would happen more often in countries with tight gun regulation. Violence in the USA is not much higher in the same way mass shootings are.

Why do you think the USA is nr.1 in the world concerning mass shootings?

View attachment 842637

Just a meme and no actual data. Who are you responding to anyway? I didnt see anyone claim here its a white people problem.

edit:

I agree. I'm not saying that we can't can't focus on guns specifically. My own smart gun idea already does that. It doesn't address the underlying violence issue, it's just something that can make guns safer.

Pro-gun advocates always conveniently ignore or downplay the fact that it does matter if a killer has a bomb, gun, assault weapon, gun, tank, knife, posion or just his/her bare hands. They tend to ignore the relevance by focusing on stopping the motivation of killing, which is a much harder problem to solve with short-term legislation and therefore there is much debate, but little action.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

I didnt see anyone claim here its a white people problem.

Guess you overlooked the quotes that were included in my post.

And yes when the majority of the population in the U.S. is white then it should come as no surprise that the white race may well top the charts of such an instance in this country.

But considering the black race is only 13% of the nations population then even your supplied data indicates that perhaps that the mass killings are more of a black problem than a white problem in this country when population numbers are taken into account since the number of incidents when taking total incidents as opposed and compared to the races total numbers within the population.

 

[Danoff]

To clarify I am not for declaring law abiding citizens to be criminals, because they own assualt weapons. I am for stricter regulation and registration (as we discussed in other threads).

What happened in france was not a occurance that happens structurally more often, unlike Mass shooting in the USA. If Mass truck killings were happening in higher frequency action would be taken, especially in a country like france. To accurately compare the lethalness more fairly is the deaths per capita over the past years by truck compared to mass shootings.

No, to accurately compare the deadliness of a particular weapon you need merely to look at cases where it is used effectively to see how deadly it was. Once again, they are fungible. The population of mass murderers is currently statistically biased to select guns. But they can select other means.

It is usefull is to explore if mass killings in the US would reduce overal if mass shootings are reduced.

It is.

Something we agree on is that use of a weapon (like driving a motorvehicle) should come with responsibility. Licensing and mandotory firearm training are legitimate options and perhaps a way to detect potential misuse.

Yup.

The USA does not stand out in violence as much as in mass shootings. It is absurd to not to explore the reason why that is. Even more absurd is to ignore the data and prematurely conclude the weapon of choice bares no relevance.

Your "as much as" is a nice phrase in there that keeps me from outright claiming that you're wrong. "Violence" is also a term that causes quibbles. The statistics that I have been posting are homicide, and I've shown that we stand out statistically in terms of homicide (gun or no gun... or both). Maybe we stand out more in terms of mass shooting. I can speculate as to why. We have some of the most lax gun laws among the wealthy nations that I posted earlier. It's easier for a would-be mass murderer to obtain guns legally (or illegally) here than it is in most of those other nations. So it does not surprise me that for mass murder we're an outlier for that particular murder weapon of choice.

That says nothing about whether a would-be mass shooter becomes a fine upstanding citizen if guns are harder to access. Keep in mind we're talking about someone who has decided to sacrifice their life for the end goal of killing others.

To go into another hypothetical. Would mass bombings increase if C4 was made legal?

You bet. But I would imagine that mass shooting would drop some.

You are concluding that mass shootings, mass bombings and car homicide are interchangable. That is a valid theory, however that should mean that bombings, car homicide would happen more often in countries with tight gun regulation. Violence in the USA is not much higher in the same way mass shootings are.

Homicide is much higher in the US. Mass-murder is much higher in the US. It's not the guns poisoning the minds of their owners, it's poisoned minds buying guns. "Other countries" do not have our homicide rate (guns or no).

Why do you think the USA is nr.1 in the world concerning mass shootings?

Three reasons. Bombs are harder to get here than other places. Guns are relatively easy to get. And we kill a lot of people here.

Pro-gun advocates always conveniently ignore or downplay the fact that it does matter if a killer has a bomb, gun, assault weapon, gun, tank, knife, posion or just his/her bare hands. They tend to ignore the relevance by focusing on stopping the motivation of killing, which is a much harder problem to solve with short-term legislation and therefore there is much debate, but little action.

Anti-gun advocates always conveniently ignore the fungible nature of murder weapons, and over-sell the effectiveness of gun control. This prevents a discussion of more effective solutions to the wider problem of violence, and instead focuses the discussion on exactly what we always try but never works, gun control which mostly ends up targeted at law abiding citizens.

 

[Exorcet]

Pro-gun advocates always conveniently ignore or downplay the fact that it does matter if a killer has a bomb, gun, assault weapon, gun, tank, knife, posion or just his/her bare hands. They tend to ignore the relevance by focusing on stopping the motivation of killing, which is a much harder problem to solve with short-term legislation and therefore there is much debate, but little action.

Whether or not it matters depends on what you're trying to measure. When it comes to people dying, the method doesn't matter. When it comes to the likelihood of a tool being used in a given situation, the method matters.

Solving the motivation problem may be harder sure, but that doesn't make it go away. Acknowledging it also doesn't prevent us from looking at less general solutions. So if you want to focus on a specific solution, like gun control, that's totally fine. I'll even support you so long as I find it agreeable.

 

[McLaren]

that he was incapable or would have stopped short of going through the building with a gun.

It was never said he was incapable of doing so. It was shown through his own words that it was never a viable option, something you have argued he might have done had he not been able to bomb the building except the last few posts, you have altered your approach to McVeigh attempting other means.

It's right there. Federal agents are soldiers. Everyone in that building (aside from the children) is a viable target.

Like everything presented, you continue to ignore what else is said in relation to that & ignore his meaning, i.e bomb it. He was never going to get anywhere past that lobby when you account for what agencies were located there.

By the 1990s, the building contained regional offices for the Social Security Administration, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the United States Secret Service, the Department of Veterans Affairs vocational rehabilitation counseling center, the Drug Enforcement Administration (D.E.A.), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF). It also contained recruiting offices for the US Military. It housed approximately 550 employees.[4] It also housed America's Kids, a children's day care center.

He was after the ATF and he knew a bomb a would accomplish his desire to reach them. He would've been killed long before he got near the ATF's offices if he had tried a mass shooter approach, hence why it was never on the table for him.

 

[PocketZeven]

Guess you overlooked the quotes that were included in my post.

And yes when the majority of the population in the U.S. is white then it should come as no surprise that the white race may well top the charts of such an instance in this country.

But considering the black race is only 13% of the nations population then even your supplied data indicates that perhaps that the mass killings are more of a black problem than a white problem in this country when population numbers are taken into account since the number of incidents when taking total incidents as opposed and compared to the races total numbers within the population.

None of the quotes imply what you suggested in your post is what I meant.

No, to accurately compare the deadliness of a particular weapon you need merely to look at cases where it is used effectively to see how deadly it was. Once again, they are fungible. The population of mass murderers is currently statistically biased to select guns. But they can select other means.



It is.



Yup.



Your "as much as" is a nice phrase in there that keeps me from outright claiming that you're wrong. "Violence" is also a term that causes quibbles. The statistics that I have been posting are homicide, and I've shown that we stand out statistically in terms of homicide (gun or no gun... or both). Maybe we stand out more in terms of mass shooting. I can speculate as to why. We have some of the most lax gun laws among the wealthy nations that I posted earlier. It's easier for a would-be mass murderer to obtain guns legally (or illegally) here than it is in most of those other nations. So it does not surprise me that for mass murder we're an outlier for that particular murder weapon of choice.

That says nothing about whether a would-be mass shooter becomes a fine upstanding citizen if guns are harder to access. Keep in mind we're talking about someone who has decided to sacrifice their life for the end goal of killing others.



You bet. But I would imagine that mass shooting would drop some.



Homicide is much higher in the US. Mass-murder is much higher in the US. It's not the guns poisoning the minds of their owners, it's poisoned minds buying guns. "Other countries" do not have our homicide rate (guns or no).



Three reasons. Bombs are harder to get here than other places. Guns are relatively easy to get. And we kill a lot of people here.



Anti-gun advocates always conveniently ignore the fungible nature of murder weapons, and over-sell the effectiveness of gun control. This prevents a discussion of more effective solutions to the wider problem of violence, and instead focuses the discussion on exactly what we always try but never works, gun control which mostly ends up targeted at law abiding citizens.

Homicide in the USA is not that much higher in absolutes per capita. We agree that it’s poisoned minds buying guns that should be halted. I am advocating for strict regulations. Like in the past we discussed I am not for gun regulation that criminalizes existing law abiding gun owners. Discourage people from mass shootings, by making it harder to obtain one.

Pro-gun control do not oversell it’s effectiveness. How many times has it actually been implemented on a national level to claim that it is tried but never worked?

If guns are not part of the problem, why is it so uniquely an American problem? What factors make it only happen in the USA? Like I stated the absolute homicide rate is not much higher, yet mass shootings are in an enormous way.

Whether or not it matters depends on what you're trying to measure. When it comes to people dying, the method doesn't matter. When it comes to the likelihood of a tool being used in a given situation, the method matters.

Solving the motivation problem may be harder sure, but that doesn't make it go away. Acknowledging it also doesn't prevent us from looking at less general solutions. So if you want to focus on a specific solution, like gun control, that's totally fine. I'll even support you so long as I find it agreeable.

The topic is mass shootings which often is random or a terrorist nature and with a lot of collateral deaths. Intentional homicide is a whole other topic. That is the problem and potential solutions we are discussing about I guess.

 

[Danoff]

It was never said he was incapable of doing so. It was shown through his own words that it was never a viable option

Not the bit you quoted. That showed that assassination was not a viable option.

something you have argued he might have done had he not been able to bomb the building except the last few posts, you have altered your approach to McVeigh attempting other means.

Huh? I'm saying had he not been able to bomb the building, he was a very likely candidate for being a mass shooter.

Like everything presented, you continue to ignore what else is said in relation to that & ignore his meaning, i.e bomb it. He was never going to get anywhere past that lobby when you account for what agencies were located there.

He was after the ATF and he knew a bomb a would accomplish his desire to reach them. He would've been killed long before he got near the ATF's offices if he had tried a mass shooter approach, hence why it was never on the table for him.

McVeigh's criterion for potential attack sites was that the target should house at least two of three federal law enforcement agencies: the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), or the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). He regarded the presence of additional law enforcement agencies, such as the Secret Service or the U.S. Marshals Service, as a bonus.[29]

Two of three federal agencies. That was his goal. If he couldn't get that goal, one has to assume that he'd go after any one of those rather than simply give up on the prospect. Federal buildings today have some security at the lobby, but it's by no means insurmountable. Agencies today perform mass shooter drills at each agency within federal buildings like the OK City one. Back then, I'd imagine they'd be less ready for a mass shooter scenario. It is 100% completely viable for a mass shooter to reach multiple agencies within a federal building. They drill and practice that scenario today, and not because it's not a credible threat.

McVeigh concluded that a bomb was his best approach for his target, and he was shown right by the outcome. But I've seen nothing so far that you've posted (or that I've read independently) that suggests that mass shooting was not a viable option to achieve some of his goals, or that he would not consider it, and it's not from lack of reading.

McVeigh concluded that all federal employees were essentially soldiers of war. He was willing to conduct random killing of any federal employees of his most preferred agencies. His goal was to maximize the inflicted damage and loss of life within those agencies. This was a fall-back goal when he decided that his high profile assassination was too difficult. I have no idea why you think this is incompatible with being a mass shooter, seems like a recipe for it. And no, the building security was not something that he couldn't overcome.

But regardless....

Do you really think that he was only willing to fall back to one compromised goal? If he couldn't achieve the bombing, I'd place bets that he'd continue to set his sights lower until he reached a target he could achieve. Especially given that he already did it once.

Homicide in the USA is not that much higher in absolutes per capita.

Take a look at that chart again.

Pro-gun control do not oversell it’s effectiveness. How many times has it actually been implemented on a national level to claim that it is tried but never worked?

Apparently all of them.

If guns are not part of the problem, why is it so uniquely an American problem? What factors make it only happen in the USA?

I answered this already.

Like I stated the absolute homicide rate is not much higher, yet mass shootings are in an enormous way.

Not much higher means... hundreds of percent higher?

 

[PocketZeven]

Not the bit you quoted. That showed that assassination was not a viable option.


Huh? I'm saying had he not been able to bomb the building, he was a very likely candidate for being a mass shooter.





Two of three federal agencies. That was his goal. If he couldn't get that goal, one has to assume that he'd go after any one of those rather than simply give up on the prospect. Federal buildings today have some security at the lobby, but it's by no means insurmountable. Agencies today perform mass shooter drills at each agency within federal buildings like the OK City one. Back then, I'd imagine they'd be less ready for a mass shooter scenario. It is 100% completely viable for a mass shooter to reach multiple agencies within a federal building. They drill and practice that scenario today, and not because it's not a credible threat.

McVeigh concluded that a bomb was his best approach for his target, and he was shown right by the outcome. But I've seen nothing so far that you've posted (or that I've read independently) that suggests that mass shooting was not a viable option to achieve some of his goals, or that he would not consider it, and it's not from lack of reading.

McVeigh concluded that all federal employees were essentially soldiers of war. He was willing to conduct random killing of any federal employees of his most preferred agencies. His goal was to maximize the inflicted damage and loss of life within those agencies. This was a fall-back goal when he decided that his high profile assassination was too difficult. I have no idea why you think this is incompatible with being a mass shooter, seems like a recipe for it. And no, the building security was not something that he couldn't overcome.

But regardless....

Do you really think that he was only willing to fall back to one compromised goal? If he couldn't achieve the bombing, I'd place bets that he'd continue to set his sights lower until he reached a target he could achieve. Especially given that he already did it once.




Take a look at that chart again.



Apparently all of them.



I answered this already.



Not much higher means... hundreds of percent higher?

I wasn’t clear. See below. The difference in intentional homicide is not that big of a difference. This includes gun deaths. With absolutes I meant to compare it with Countries with much higher intentional homicides.

Per 100.000 intentional homicides:

Europe 3
USA 5.3
El Salvador 61.8

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

 

[Danoff]

I wasn’t clear. See below. The difference in intentional homicide is not that big of a difference. This includes gun deaths. With absolutes I meant to compare it with Countries with much higher intentional homicides.

Per 100.000 intentional homicides:

Europe 3
USA 5.3
El Salvador 61.8

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

That's what I gave you, intentional homicides. You're lumping all of Europe in together to make the number seem larger. I'm comparing to the high income countries in this list:

 

[PocketZeven]

That's what I gave you, intentional homicides. You're lumping all of Europe in together to make the number seem larger. I'm comparing to the high income countries in this list:

Yes but your chart shows only a small part. According to your chart the difference is 1 out of 100k to 2 out of 100k. Although it’s 100% difference relatively it isn’t that much higher. Especially if you put mass shootings next to each other.

Edit: the 2nd chart already shows that gun related homicide is 600% higher.

 

[ryzno]

I wasn’t clear. See below. The difference in intentional homicide is not that big of a difference. This includes gun deaths. With absolutes I meant to compare it with Countries with much higher intentional homicides.

Per 100.000 intentional homicides:

Europe 3
USA 5.3
El Salvador 61.8

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Looks like El Salvador has a way bigger problem than we do.

 

[Famine]

As some of us have moved back to only caring about people killing other people with guns (with a particular focus on when they kill lots of people at once), and not any other kind of people killing other people, I'll just post this chart of weekly death tolls (from 2018 figures) in the USA again:

Accidental/Vehicular: 700
Suicide/Non-firearm: 400
Suicide/Firearm: 400
Murder/Shooting (other than mass-shooting): 180
Accidental/Fire: 80
Murder/Stabbing: 40
Homicide/Shot by police officer: 19
Murder/No weapon: 14
Murder/Blunt object: 10
Murder/Mass-shooting incident: 7
Accidental/Animal-related: 4
Accidental/Auto-erotic asphyxiation: 3
Murder/Serial Killer: 1.3
Murder/Terrorism: 0.3

I'll make the note again that if you're young, black and male, you're 30 times more likely to be in the fourth category that if you're young, white and male. And that if you're white and male, you're twice as more likely to be in the third category than every other group put together.

I particularly 'like' the category two above "mass-shooting incident".

 

[zzz_pt]

As some of us have moved back to only caring about people killing other people with guns (with a particular focus on when they kill lots of people at once), and not any other kind of people killing other people, I'll just post this chart of weekly death tolls (from 2018 figures) in the USA again:

Accidental/Vehicular: 700
Suicide/Non-firearm: 400
Suicide/Firearm: 400
Murder/Shooting (other than mass-shooting): 180
Accidental/Fire: 80
Murder/Stabbing: 40
Homicide/Shot by police officer: 19
Murder/No weapon: 14
Murder/Blunt object: 10
Murder/Mass-shooting incident: 7
Accidental/Animal-related: 4
Accidental/Auto-erotic asphyxiation: 3
Murder/Serial Killer: 1.3
Murder/Terrorism: 0.3

I'll make the note again that if you're young, black and male, you're 30 times more likely to be in the fourth category that if you're young, white and male. And that if you're white and male, you're twice as more likely to be in the third category than every other group put together.

I particularly 'like' the category two above "mass-shooting incident".

How many of those involve innocent children being killed on purpose? I think that's why mass shootings get the attention and so many people stop to think twice about the violence problem in the USA. Because their children can die at someone's hands anywhere at any time.

I know every innocent counts, but I also thing children's safety should be the priority, before adults, because they can't 1) defent themselves and 2) they are never involved to the point that the person who kills them could argue "he/she/they didn't pay my rent/stole my job/killed my friend/didn't bring the the meth/etc.

Maybe it's somewhat irrational if you "only" look at the numbers. But it's also very human(e), to see beyond the numbers.

 

[Famine]

How many of those involve innocent children being killed on purpose?

Per week, 0.6 of a child (aged 12 and under) would be killed in a spree-shooting, 23 in other shootings and roughly 25 by murders other than shooting.

For other "fun" statistics, 0.7 of a child will die in a hot car, 9 will be murdered by their parents, 11 will die in suicides by shooting... and I can't find anything on non-shooting suicides. But roughly 170 will die in road vehicle accidents.


So yeah, the stats for kids being killed in spree-shootings are about the same as the stats for kids dying after being left in hot cars. Although I'd guess they happen at completely opposed times of year.

 

[zzz_pt]

Per week, 0.6 of a child (aged 12 and under) would be killed in a spree-shooting, 23 in other shootings and roughly 25 by murders other than shooting.

For other "fun" statistics, 0.7 of a child will die in a hot car, 9 will be murdered by their parents, 11 will die in suicides by shooting... and I can't find anything on non-shooting suicides. But roughly 170 will die in road vehicle accidents.


So yeah, the stats for kids being killed in spree-shootings are about the same as the stats for kids dying after being left in hot cars. Although I'd guess they happen at completely opposed times of year.

I should have said "killed by completely strangers on purpose".

Are those 23 in the "Murder/Shooting (other than mass-shooting): 180" category? Is anyone shooting complete strange kids on purpose in the US? That's odd. Where's the number 25 from? Are there people killing children on purpose with other methods?

Children dying in cars is so f stupid. I don't know it's even possible to do something about it. And they're usually left to die by their parents. So if you have a child, you won't have to worry about your kid dying in someone else's car, on purpose. Dunno how many of those 9 are intentionally left to die, but I suppose a few... because crazy.

 

[Danoff]

Yes but your chart shows only a small part. According to your chart the difference is 1 out of 100k to 2 out of 100k. Although it’s 100% difference relatively it isn’t that much higher. Especially if you put mass shootings next to each other.

Edit: the 2nd chart already shows that gun related homicide is 600% higher.

100% difference isn't that much higher? Are you smoking something? And what are you comparing against? Because our non-gun homicide rate is what... 3-4 times the UK's entire homicide rate? Our total homicide rate is many hundreds of percent higher than the UK's homicide rate. We have a lot more murderers per capita, and they pick guns here more often than other countries because they're easier to get here. That's what's happening.

If you could just let go of some of your fixation on the weapon, we would largely agree. In the US, it's absurd how easily one can obtain a firearm. Absurd. An 18 year old on an FBI watch list for school shootings bought a plane ticket to Denver, hoped off the plane, and promptly bought a shotgun at a gun shop. That's insane, and it's a huge problem. The recent Florida shooting was similar.

In the US, you can list your shotgun on (what amounts to) craigslist and put it up for sale (I've heard, though not verified, that craigslist literally has guns in some states). Gun shows can sell firearms to basically anyone. Federal background checks do not apply to private sales of guns, so gun shows and internet classifieds are exempt. It is a total sham that the sales of guns are carefully controlled or that owners are vetted. They're not, anyone can buy one... criminal history, FBI watchlist, documented mental problems... it seems that none of these really stop anyone who is motivated, and we know that a would-be mass murderer is motivated.

So we have problems, and they should be addressed. But our problems are deeper than guns, much deeper.

 

[Exorcet]

The topic is mass shootings which often is random or a terrorist nature and with a lot of collateral deaths. Intentional homicide is a whole other topic. That is the problem and potential solutions we are discussing about I guess.

Not everyone agrees with you though, so you can't just put mass shootings in their own category and ignore everything else, at least when discussing with other people. Focusing on that particular form of killing is fine if that's what worries you and like I said before, I don't mind having solutions put forward just to deal with the shooting issue. I do want those solutions to respect the rights of people who haven't done anything wrong though.

Children dying in cars is so f stupid. I don't know it's even possible to do something about it.

We could start by trying to figure out why it happens. It's easy to just say anyone involved is just stupid but I don't agree. Carseat deaths aren't something that I've looked into recently or deeply, but some of the cases I've seen appear to be accidents. You'd think a child would be at the front of someone's mind but having something important slip is pretty human. Something we might need is a backup when the mind fails us. Cars already have weight sensors to prevent airbag injuries involving children in the front seat, I don't see why something similar can't be used in a car seat that would remind the parent of their child.

 

[zzz_pt]

We could start by trying to figure out why it happens. It's easy to just say anyone involved is just stupid but I don't agree. Carseat deaths aren't something that I've looked into recently or deeply, but some of the cases I've seen appear to be accidents. You'd think a child would be at the front of someone's mind but having something important slip is pretty human. Something we might need is a backup when the mind fails us. Cars already have weight sensors to prevent airbag injuries involving children in the front seat, I don't see why something similar can't be used in a car seat that would remind the parent of their child.

Now that you wrote it, I think I agree. Didn't think about a sensor. That's something easy (I suppose) that could and should be implemented. Still, forgetting one's sun or daughter in the back seat is so strange to me.

My focus was on non accidental killing of children by a stranger tho. It seems to be one if not the most important difference making mass shootings the reason to talk about gun control. Children can't carry a gun to kill in self defense, after all.