McLaren
Premium
- 45,389
- Texas
Mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio
- Thread starter Novalee
- 669 comments
- 30,035 views
- 86,658
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Which is why I didn't say you did.
They are a problem, but they need to be shown in the context of the problem.
It seems that spree-shootings get people very worked up, and we all go over the shooter, their victims, their gun, the motivation, a second-by-second analysis of the incident... and so on. Since Saturday another 100 people have been shot dead in the USA - that's three lots of Dayton and El Paso put together - and that doesn't seem to have twitched anyone's needle, much less the 24-hour news media which gorges itself on spree-shootings. I don't know why it hasn't, but I can't imagine it's because 95% of the the perpetrators and victims were poor, young, black men.
They very much do, but as I explained at very great length, no-one really seems to know what the issue is or how to tackle it because it's so insanely complicated - I ran out of patience before I ran out of things to list as factors.
It's not helped by a highly polarised media which screams that guns are to blame on one side, and screams that guns are a god-given right 2A OOH-RAH on the other while skipping over all the other issues that lead up to the point where one human picks up a weapon to kill another - which includes a media that will not discuss these issues or hold the politicians to account (lest they get a suicide double-tap).
Indeed not. It's a highly complex situation pretty much emergent from the fact that the USA is only a common governmental framework, currency, trading and defence bloc for fifty territories. The USA only really has one gun law - which are that the government can't make gun laws* - but each of the fifty(one) territories in the USA has its own set below that - some are highly restrictive, some are more loose. Within each territory there are subdivisions - districts, counties, municipalities and so on - that may have their own set of laws below those, in ever-nested brackets.
It's a bit of a minefield.
I wouldn't say it was a "serious" contributing factor, but it depends on what you classify as mental health. Of course there's also a stigma attached to those with recognised mental health conditions that we're all murderers in waiting.
Detecting mental health issues is... tricky. Recognised neurodevelopmental disorders are pretty easy, generally speaking. It's pretty rare now for a kid to go through any school system with even a thin end of an autistic spectrum disorder and not get picked up. That wasn't the case 20 years ago, but it is now. But how do you spot up someone with anxiety and depression? The symptoms commonly manifest in private - poor sleep patterns are quite high on the list - and there's a mood mask in public. At best they're introverted, but they're usually "normal". You won't spot a depressed spree killer until after he's reached breaking point and killed his wife and children (that's three, that's a spree) out of despair and then himself, and you start looking through his browser history.
The UK's major spree killers - Birmingham, Hungerford, Monkseaton, Dunblane, Cumbria and Northumbria - had all either reported mental health conditions or sought help for them (schizophrenia, schizophrenia, unknown but "insanity", noncing [or "paraphilia"], unknown but reported paranoia, unknown but reportedly sought help for "a problem"). That said, I personally doubt that what we'd recognise as mental health conditions are overrepresented in murder perpetrators...
... but on the other hand, deciding that another human being deserves to die (or is not a human being) and you have the right to carry out that act is not a shining example of solid cognitive processes. Unless carried out in defence (of yourself or others you feel are in immediate danger), that decision is surely a sign of a brain malfunction.
After all, taking the decision to end your own life is almost always classed as a mental health issue. Outside of euthanasia (and sometimes not even that) even a suicidal ideation is grounds for a short stay in a hospital. And yes, the USA's suicide rates are highly concerning - it's 40% higher than in the UK. So why isn't the decision to take someone else's life also a mental health issue?
But again, I can't see any evidence that the American people don't think something should be done. I see a lot of American media blasting on about gun control on one side and 2A on the other, but there's quite a few Americans in this thread telling you that they do care. The fact that there's any Americans telling you anything in this thread about two spree-shootings** should be an indicator of that on its own.
Yet ultimately we return to the same question: what is the issue? We can't even agree on that, and so long as the media is on a colossal gunwank (on both sides), it won't be discussed. If the issue isn't discussed and no-one knows what it is, how are people to make an informed decision on how to address the issue? That aside, if you dare to suggest any proposal that involves restricting guns in any way, one side will yell you down, but if you dare to suggest looking at things other than guns, the other side will.
And then what act do the people carry out to solve it? As far as I can see, the solutions require legislation at some level or another, and that means voting for the right politicians to enact it. What are the politicians' position on how to address gun crime? Same as the media: gun control on one side, 2A on the other. That aside, it's a single issue - you can't divide one vote up to the things you agree with and don't agree with, your vote gives a mandate to all of the things the politician says. That means people will vote for the politician that best represents their position (or flag, preferred animal, favourite colour, or what their mum voted for) overall, not just on guns. People who are pro-gun control might vote for a politician bought and paid by the NRA because of all their other policies (or religion). In essence, US politics - thanks to lobbying, gerrymandering and the insanely pervasive idea of the two party system (and the pace at which they are growing apart) - is ****ed into a cocked hat and needs a major change that's unlikely to come any time soon.
There's very little the average American can do about... well, any law; the best you can hope for is that you and all your neighbours get together in a homeowners' association and make regulations about your little patch of the planet (and @Danoff's stories alone about HOAs will make you grimace at that concept). Don't mix that up with not caring. Chances are they're more exasperated than you are about it - they have to live with it and you don't.
*Although it still did that anyway. I'm entirely unclear on this point.
**Quick reminder: this week's non spree-shooting bodycount in Chicago alone is already higher than these two incidents. I don't know why this is not regarded as shocking events.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,364
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
By saying Americans don't care, you're painting an entire nation with a pretty broad brush and saying we are cold and crass towards innocent people losing their lives. I doubt you'll find many people that will flat out tell you they don't care that innocent people were killed. I'm sure out of our entire population there are people that think that way, but they probably are the vast minority.
Well, a 30 second Google search yielded the data in a pretty clear cut graph. There's no real need to study something when it comes down to how many happened over the course of a year because it's just data.
But since you still don't believe me that determining the causes of mass shootings would prove to be difficult, let me run down through a list of things you'd need to address to get an answer.
First, you'd need to know the motive for the shooter and since pretty much every mass shooting has a different motive, that might be hard. Also, the shooter rarely survives so it's not like you can sit down and talk to them.
Second, you'll need to build a comprehensive psychological profile on the shooter to see what sort of external effects played a role. Were they bullied? Abused? Indoctrinated? Were they mentally ill? If so, what type of illness did they have? Were they on medication? Were they taking it? What sort of other treatments did they try? And so on.
Third, you need to investigate why the shooter used a gun instead of something like a bomb, a vehicle, fire, poison, gas, etc. Then you need to look at those incidents where other devices were used and see why they didn't use a firearm.
There are a hundred more things you'd need to look at as well, most of which wouldn't be easy. Even trying to get mental health information would prove to be nearly impossible.
Christ almighty, you really don't get it, do you? People don't accept it. I could probably ask everyone I know, who range from staunch conservatives to bleeding heart liberals and I doubt I'd get anyone that says they don't care that innocent people were killed. Even the people I know with racist tendencies don't want to see Mexicans straight-up murdered. They just want them out of the country for whatever reason.
And do you really think you could get 300 million people to collectively agree on anything? Hell, try getting three people to agree on where to get take out from. It's not easy and while pretty much everyone thinks something should be done to prevent mass shootings, everyone has different opinions on how to do it. Me, I want better background checks, increased training for concealed carry, the border patrol to curtail illegal guns from entering the country, and better security at large events. Others want a full-on ban on guns, while another set of people want to arm the nation so everyone has guns. It's not an easy problem to solve and it's certainly not something that's easy to agree on the method of solving it.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,937
- Mile High City
No? I don't think the typical 8chan troll is a mass shooter. But I do think that the typical mass shooter has the wherewithal to build a bomb. In fact, many of them do. Part of the reason they don't is because as @Famine said, it's easy. But another part of it is because they want to experience murder from behind a gun and see their victims' fear. They can't do that with a bomb, but they absolutely will if they have to. And at least in one documented case, we know for sure that they'd kill more people, even people they didn't want to kill, by doing so.
I don't separate these events like you do. They don't look like different "kinds" of events to me just because the weapon of choice was different. These events are linked. McVeigh was not a 50-year event, because it happened in El Paso. Know what I mean?
I don't agree. Also, Nice France.
You're talking about committing a bigger atrocity than you're advocating preventing. Of course I care, about both horrible things you're discussing.
I was going to do what @Famine beat me to above and explain that this misses the big picture entirely. Luckily he got there. You keep saying we don't care about mass shootings... but I think you sound like you don't care about the rest of violent crime, singling out a very tiny fraction of the suffering that happens at the hands of others in the US. To me, it is you who seem callous, and who seems to be twisting this discussion to make a political point.
It's a hard problem, because we value our freedom. If we didn't value our freedom, it might be easy... just enact draconian laws and squash human rights. You can end crime, but at the cost of those principles that humanity needs.
Our homicide rate is quite higher than yours.... even if you're just looking at the homicides that don't include guns.
Edit:
I guess I should say... I'm not contesting your point about violent crime, just narrowing the focus to homicide to show a big difference.
We've tried tons of stuff, including gazillions of pages of legislation on guns in particular. Heck it seems like yesterday Trump managed to reclassify bump stocks.
Last edited:
The issue though is that there is a difference in just saying you care about something and doing something about it. Which is what I’m getting at.
It’s not that I don’t believe you, it’s that this is already other people’s jobs and careers. You personally don’t ‘need’ to do it, just read other people’s work.
Earlier in this thread you talked at a fair length about your right to own a gun. How is it your so read about that, but just shrug when it comes to why mass shootings happen. Hell, if I was pro-gun I’d want to understand that better than anything because it’s the only thing that threatens to take something away I ‘need’.
No one can agree, no one can vote for anyone that can agree, no one group is large enough to lobby for anything and so nothing is done.
In your take out example, would the solution be for the three people to starve?
I understand that it’s hard but I don’t understand how zero is done. Trade unions exist to lobby for the rights of workers and I’m sure not everyone agrees with those. The NRA exist as a pro-gun lobby. There exist powerful groups within the nation at national and state level.
Why aren’t there protest groups demanding better mental health care?
I don’t think there are because, it’s just not an issue enough people care that strongly about.
Last edited:
- 29,139
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Though you are implying that unless you do something about an issue, you don't care about it... which is not true.
As has been said already, there are only so many things individuals who do care about an issue can do about said issue. Worried about the environment? Stop flying, recycle, or walk to work instead of driving. Care about animal rights? Don't eat meat, wear a T-shirt with a slogan on it. But when it comes to gun violence in the US, there isn't that many things individuals or even groups can do other than to lobby their elected officials - and even then, as has already been discussed, there are some pretty hefty issues, not least the Constitution, people's rights, and the fact that the US is awash with weapons already.
It's definitely not as simple as suggesting that, if only enough people cared and did something about it (like what?), then gun violence would go down.
A good start is to address what actually makes people resort to extreme violence in the first place, but again that is a huge topic and is something that easier said than done as well.
My personal feeling is that gun violence in the US would be lower if guns were not so free to hand for so many people - and yet, if someone is mad enough to shoot people for no good reason, they don't need a gun to do a lot of damage if they are hell-bent on it. Unfortunately, as we have already seen in recent years, vehicles, IEDs and bladed weapons are just as deadly in the wrong hands.
This latter point strongly makes the case for focusing on violence prevention rather than imposing ineffective controls on guns, knives or vehicles, but alas there will always be those who seek to do others harm for one reason or another. In the case of mass shootings, however, perhaps the best we can hope for is to prevent those attacks that are/were preventable, and it is not necessarily the case that restricting access to guns would have a major impact - sure, it would mean less mass shootings, but it would be for nothing unless the number of violent attacks was also to be reduced in the process.
The flipside of more restrictions on access to guns is that it also potentially makes it harder for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves, which means that even if a particular gun control measure was to reduce the likelihood of someone being attacked by a gun, it could also make it more likely that being attacked by another means (e.g. a machete) is more likely to result in the victim's death, thus defeating the purpose of the gun control measure.
Isn't it?
Granted it's not a; yes I care/no I don't care, on-off type switch. But I don't believe that people are as helpless against the evil broken system as they make out.
I don't know what the answer is, but plenty of people here are quick to defend guns and draw the mental illness links. Ok, fine so then what are you as a nation doing to address mental illness?
Nothing.
Oh, why?
Because, its complicated and no one can agree.
But you've said that YOU think mental health is the issue.
But maybe it isn't, I don't really know.
Why not?
Because it's too hard to research and would take too much time etc..
Oh, ok so you don't really care that much then?
What!? How dare you! We do care!
So why has nothing been done over the last 20+ years?
Because it's impossible thanks to our broken and unfair government and undemocratic process.
Then why hasn't that been changed?
Because it's impossible.
This is basically how its going. The onus is on the people to change the country they live in to make it better, if it's not on the people who live there, who is it on?
I'm not suggesting wearing tee-shirts would suddenly change or reduce gun violence and mass shootings. But if the people who are elected suddenly have to deal with thousands/tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands of people, in the streets all over the nation campaigning for better health and support for the mentally ill. If those related charities have the financial backing of people to help lobby for real change, maybe America could reduce the number or deadliness of mass shootings.
If we change the focus on to me, I'm aware of global warming and how its basically the end of the world. Yet, I don't do an awful lot. I still eat meat, use plastic bags, I'm bad at recycling etc... and it's because I'm honestly not that bothered about it. And that's fine, that's my opinion and my stance and I'm honest about.
Brexit is something I do care about, and so not only have we (me and you for example) had many a discussion/argument about it, I've also voted against it pretty religiously, financially supported movements to try and prevent it and taken part in events. But despite my own convictions, I'm of the opinion that most people in the UK, don't care about Brexit and are more concerned about Love Island, or problems in there own lives. And this, is what I think is the case with America and mass shootings. The problem seems so massive, so impossible to fix that people can't relate to it. It fades into the background and people stop caring as it becomes background noise.
Maybe, but what good does it do for foreigners to offer suggestions/possible solutions to American's when they can't or wont act upon their own suggestions and possible solutions?
- 29,139
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
I'm at work so I need to keep this brief, but it is easy to prove that there is a difference between one's concern over an issue and one's ability to change it.
I care deeply about the future of our planet and so I do as much as I can, but there's not much I can do (or even our entire nation can do) to remedy a situation that requires global action; and the trouble with imposing rules on foreign countries (e.g. on CO2 emissions) is that they are not obliged to give a toss about what we might think they should do... and that's not even taking into account whether or not countries (such as China) ought to have an equal right to exploit fossil fuels just as much as we do or have in the past.
The best we can hope for is to be able to convince as many people as possible that change is necessary and to lead by example - but no matter what one's best advice or ambitions are, it doesn't change the fact that there are major considerations (for example, human rights) that our opinions cannot (and should not) take out of the equation.
That's not what I said;
Great! And there are loads of movements to support and back, and although the damage can't be reversed big companies are starting. The legislation is getting there.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Fun post. I feel you are finally coming to grips with your incessant complaints about mass shootings in America.
America has in the recent past come together to make sweeping changes via massive protests in the streets. A good example is the Vietnam war. A whole generation of young men like me were being involuntarily conscripted to go halfway around the world to kill or be killed in a cause that was frankly incredible. Another good example was the civil rights movement. I recall marching around a courthouse with my parent's generation.
- 5,196
- Nicest part of hell
In the US glazed donuts kill more people than mass shootings.
Want to change US for the better and save tens of thousands of lives? Schools need to get rid of their crazy caloric rich food programs, food and drug awareness classes should be introduced into school programs, food that is not fast food should be made cheaper, there should be programs to encourage the populace to start cooking their own meals again.
That wouldn't just save a coupled dozen lives, it could save an entire generation, and maybe the next as well.
I mean, its a pretty big problem when even the high military generals say that the US is actually in a national emergency situation since obesity is so widespread and the ill effects on health so severe that a draft to defend the country would reap abysmal results.
Yet gun violence with legally owned guns, which granted IS a problem, but all things considered is barely a fringe problem, gets 99% the attention and resources thrown at it.
I have looked in the forums and I have not seen one thread about the health issues caused by the ever increasing numbers of obese people in the US and the deaths and illnesses caused by it. People don't make protests, there is no significant movement gathering media attention - What gives?
But I guess a sickly, unarmed, depressed and divided population is easier to manipulate and deal with.
Want to change US for the better and save tens of thousands of lives? Schools need to get rid of their crazy caloric rich food programs, food and drug awareness classes should be introduced into school programs, food that is not fast food should be made cheaper, there should be programs to encourage the populace to start cooking their own meals again.
That wouldn't just save a coupled dozen lives, it could save an entire generation, and maybe the next as well.
I mean, its a pretty big problem when even the high military generals say that the US is actually in a national emergency situation since obesity is so widespread and the ill effects on health so severe that a draft to defend the country would reap abysmal results.
Yet gun violence with legally owned guns, which granted IS a problem, but all things considered is barely a fringe problem, gets 99% the attention and resources thrown at it.
I have looked in the forums and I have not seen one thread about the health issues caused by the ever increasing numbers of obese people in the US and the deaths and illnesses caused by it. People don't make protests, there is no significant movement gathering media attention - What gives?
But I guess a sickly, unarmed, depressed and divided population is easier to manipulate and deal with.
Last edited:
Joey D
Premium
- 47,364
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
My right to own a gun comes down to one sentence in our founding document. I don't really need to study in-depth what that means because, for me at least, it's pretty clear cut. I can own a gun and the government can on infringe on my right to own it.
Yes, there are people that study mass shootings, but it's still incredibly complex. I could read everything that's out there and still not be any closer to an answer. To fully understand it, more study needs to be done and thousands of questions need to be investigated, then tested via the scientific method.
Social science is involved and we still debate things that we've studied for years.
I also don't shrug when it comes to mass shootings. Saying that is, once again, pretty insulting and proves that you really don't get it. So, once again, I care and do not just shrug it off as something that happens.
Your own country is dealing with Brexit right now, a decision that was made over three years ago. Guess what, you're still trying to figure it all out. Shouldn't it just be simple? Just up an leave the EU? Of course, I know it's not that simple, just like every large scale issue that a country deals with.
It's disingenuous to say nothing is being done too. People do protest, there are lobby groups, and things are even brought up at a state and national level to "fix" mental healthcare and really just healthcare in general. But, once again, the "how" is a point of debate and typically revolves around who's actually going to pay for it.
I'm not sure how many more ways people need to tell you, but it has nothing to do with not caring. It has everything to do with people caring a whole lot and not agreeing on the best avenue to solve the problem. Every single government runs into the exact same thing and rarely things are a unanimous decision.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,937
- Mile High City
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
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/08/us/california-stabbing-attacks/index.html
CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,274
- United States
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Two were stabbed to death in one place, two others were stabbed in two separate incidents hours apart. I'm not sure the breadth of times and places qualifies it as "mass", more of a "spree"?
I don't know why there would be a lack of interest - there seems to be an endemic culture of violence in the USA. Knife control is much more difficult than gun control but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted. You can see from Britain's figures (260 deaths from knives in 2018, 40,000 total crimes where a knife was used or presented) that it's impossible to eradicate knife crime even with public will and legislation on your side. But, like I said, that doesn't mean you don't try as hard as possible.
I mean, you don't have to solve it (you personally), just come to a reasonable conclusion and then support that as a method of tackling it.
This is what I was originally asking, because these protests are generally not broadcast. The last mass shooting that really seemed to spark any debate was when Obama was President. It seemed like some sort of gun ban might be coming in but nothing really seemed to happen and the mass shootings carried on.
True, but in three years we've had three Prime Ministers in quick succession and many many resignations about it, not to mention rallies etc. I could quickly point to many of these things happening, but still come to the conclusion that I don't think (on balance) most of the British public cares.
I mean, you're the only person who's really engaging with me that is American (I'm pretty sure). If mass shootings just get caught on the cogs on a badly run country, what would it take for something to actually change things? Could anything? Part of my reasoning for suggesting American's don't care is because I can't imagine an atrocity like a mass shooting, being so bad that America is shocked into action. And if you can't create that jolt, why?
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
From '65 to '72, over 57,000 largely conscripted young American men were killed in Vietnam with less than zero to show for it. The American people partly by rioting in the streets demanded an end, and so it did. So there is something that answers part of your question. We can be jolted to action by mass deaths. Do you hear this? Can you possibly acknowledge it?
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
- 4,572
- Moscow
- Rage_Racer_VOLK
- RageRacer48
To be honest - recently in Japan, one man killed 35 people using just two cans of gasoline (that he bought on a gas station), a lighter (or a match) and no special knowledge.
- 5,196
- Nicest part of hell
Knife control? You got to be kidding. People asking for that really don't see the problem with that kind of thought process? First gun control, then knife control. Guns are super easy to get on the black market, knifes well, people get stabbed in PRISONS where there is an EVERYTHING-control. A glass shard wrapped in a plastic bag can kill you in the blink of an eye. Heck, ancient people were making knifes and stabby-things before they even fully learned the upright walk.
Banning tools will never do much if anything at all because those that want to kill either have sources where they can get their weapons illegally (most people interested in killing other people are not deranged mass-shooters but people or gang members with ties to the underworld) or they can easily fabricate a makeshift weapon. Or use the good old car. Effectively you will take away those tools from people who were law abiding citizen who didn't have any sinister plans in their heads in the first place.
But oh boy, gun banning makes one hell of a good political campaign since its is done with the stroke of a pen instead of exploring complex solutions, you lose only a tiny fraction of your voters who are gun enthusiasts who are an expendable minority anyway but you gain the votes of all the mindless masses who think that banning something is the solution for basically everything. (BTW, murdering people is banned but...oh well)
I like to get out good 'ole Switzerland again, the country with even more gun enthusiasts and more liberal gun laws in the US. In Switzerland people can and do own FULLY automatic belt fed machine guns. According to the thought process of people who support bans Switzerland should be a freaking smoldering crater by now, but its a prospering, rich and very safe country.
So maaaaaaybe gun laws have little to do with actual gun violence, huh?
Banning tools will never do much if anything at all because those that want to kill either have sources where they can get their weapons illegally (most people interested in killing other people are not deranged mass-shooters but people or gang members with ties to the underworld) or they can easily fabricate a makeshift weapon. Or use the good old car. Effectively you will take away those tools from people who were law abiding citizen who didn't have any sinister plans in their heads in the first place.
But oh boy, gun banning makes one hell of a good political campaign since its is done with the stroke of a pen instead of exploring complex solutions, you lose only a tiny fraction of your voters who are gun enthusiasts who are an expendable minority anyway but you gain the votes of all the mindless masses who think that banning something is the solution for basically everything. (BTW, murdering people is banned but...oh well)
I like to get out good 'ole Switzerland again, the country with even more gun enthusiasts and more liberal gun laws in the US. In Switzerland people can and do own FULLY automatic belt fed machine guns. According to the thought process of people who support bans Switzerland should be a freaking smoldering crater by now, but its a prospering, rich and very safe country.
So maaaaaaybe gun laws have little to do with actual gun violence, huh?
- 29,628
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
There are elements of what you say that have substance but...
A country with a violence problem probably shouldn't have liberal gun laws.
Switzerland? Doesn't have a major violence problem so liberal gun laws function, and both create and address balance.
The United States of America? Evidently has some kind of violence problem so non-federal, varying gun laws do not address issues and create an imbalance so liberal gun laws won't work and aren't working.
- 11,785
- Marin County
Couple of things:
Apparently this is the highest casualty attack in more than 2 decades for Japan. Meaning, as I said, an attack like this is a rare event and difficult to accomplish. Japan is one of the safest countries in the world.
Also, while this man was largely successful, he probably wouldn't have been if the building was safer. There's no reason why a non-catastrophic building fire should have killed so many of its occupants, especially when they weren't asleep. The fire exits were not passable, apparently. Unless proof emerges that this guy planned that aspect, I'm going to blame the fatality count largely on the lack of a safe building - they should have been able to get out.
One attack of this scale every two decades is absolutely better than one every few months.
Put another way: If you were planning to go mow down as many people as you could, with the least exposure to getting caught beforehand, with the least amount of preparation and planning, and the most probability of success, you would go buy the thing that was designed to do exactly that thing. An AR15 is a magnificent piece of engineering for the specific purpose of incapacitating other human beings. A couple of cans of gasoline is far more unwieldy. Do you splash and light? The person(s) could probably run away effectively and bystanders could far more easily stop you. Do you set fire to a building? Again the chances of your victim escaping are pretty high. An AR15 is way better suited to the job. A 5,000lbs bomb is going to be very effective. But where do you even get the materials to build it? I think a DIY search is going to get some ATF agents knocking pretty quickly. Semi-auto rifles with big detachable box magazines are by far your best option.
Last edited:
- 3,802
The gun ban has zero to do with us only 4 having mass shootings in 30 years. Plenty of guns are coming into England from Iraland. No gunlaw is going to prevent a mass shooter, but a law abiding citezen witha gun can prevent one or lessen the carnage. As has happend and even happened in the christchurch shooting which the media completley ignore as truth is now what counts.
It is frankly laughable that people think gun laws will prevent shootings, as if a gun law is going to make a phsycho sane. Just look at crime rates in american states where guns are banned. Gun ban in Australia just made crims more confident and took citizens ability to defend themselves away, and crime has not gone down like they claim it has. If shooter comes into a mall and yo are there with your loved ones stood right in front of the shooter, what are you going to do? just be a siting duck and count how many seconds you and you loved ones have to live? it is every persons right to defend themselves and that means not just having your fists.
I i do wonder though. If anti gun people saw a mass shooter and saw a gun just within their reach, would they pick the gun up and shoot the shooter or just look it and say nah aint doing that, guns should be banned.
- 2,647
Switzerland is a proper 1st world country so inequalities are much less of an issue.
- 2,359
- Ventura, California
There are more people in one city in the United States than all of Switzerland. The state of California is 10 times bigger than Switzerland. Stop comparing Switzerland to the US.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,937
- Mile High City
You're kinda missing the point with that, which is that arson is a legitimate way to kill lots of people at once, and is something that is turned to in the absence of guns. Like it or not, the US doesn't have Japan's culture. We have US culture, and that apparently includes more homicides without guns than the UK and Japan combined.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
If you're comparing the likelihood of n in 100,000 people committing a murder then what's the difference?
I'm neither proficient shooter nor arsonist but I'd guess that getting the same results as the Walmart gun attack with a can of petrol and a lighter would have been quite difficult.
- 11,785
- Marin County
No disrespect, but I think you are missing the point. My point is that while an arson attack is a credible alternative to an AR15 with a 100 round drum magazine, the chances of it succeeding (success being a mass casualty event) are exponentially less unless you have very specific circumstances. I doubt the El Paso perpetrator would have been able to kill anyone by setting the mall on fire, for instance, unless it was extremely well coordinated by blocking exits and rendering fire suppression equipment nonfunctional AND managing to find a crowded area with enough combustible material. None of those things I would imagine he would have been able to do.
Las Vegas shooting? Nope, arson wouldn't work. Neither would a truck probably due to barriers. A bomb would have been hard to place in an ideal position without getting caught. A drone strike would have worked a treat, but Reapers are hard to come by.
Mass shootings are opportunity driven with, I would say, minimal to moderate planning required.
I mean...guns, especially the high-capacity semi automatic rifle variety are the best way to kill a crowd of people effectively. Do you disagree?
Is that Homicides per capita or Homicides generally? If the latter...well...we also have considerably more people than the UK and Japan combined.
I wholeheartedly believe that if there were no guns in the US, and we were forced with deal attempted arson at the equivalent frequency of mass shootings we currently experience, I think we would be significantly better off. That's my point.
Last edited:
