Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[CroFlames]

The comments on that WP article are rich.

Blame liberals because they changed the definition of mass shooting. It's obviously the liberals' fault for the shootings.

[EldrickOnIce]

http://nonotoriety.com/

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

http://nonotoriety.com/

Hear, hear.

I obviously live in the USA and when Ottawa happened, the coverage between CDN and US stations was stark. It was American stations that broke the name of the shooter, while CDN stations were focused on poor Cirillo and the developing story.

[CliffFletcher]

Why do we presume that it's a good thing to publicize victims? Aren't we assuming that everyone wants public recognition of their loss? I know that our society today craves celebrity and dreads anonymity, but I'm not comfortable discounting the notion that the thing victims and their families want most is privacy.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Why do we presume that it's a good thing to publicize victims? Aren't we assuming that everyone wants public recognition of their loss? I know that our society today craves celebrity and dreads anonymity, but I'm not comfortable discounting the notion that the thing victims and their families want most is privacy.

Yes, but it's a way of memorializing victims. No one chose to be a victim of a shooting.

The shooter's identity shouldn't be revealed if you ask me, ever.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

The shooter's identity shouldn't be revealed if you ask me, ever.

Agreed.

[EldrickOnIce]

Cpl. Nathan Cirillo. I am honoured to know some of the story of this man's life. Maybe honoured is the wrong word, but

The media must focus on something. It should never be the shooter

[killer_carlson]

I know of Nathan Cirillo. I chose not to learn the name of the coward who shot him in the back. I have this cartoon mounted and hung on the wall of my office. I choose to remember Nathan Cirillo and the honorable efforts of our military and first responders. It's a small gesture on my part to demonstrate a focus on the victims and not to glorify the cowards who commit these crimes.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novasco...arts-worldwide

[wwkayaker]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/26/politi...ers/index.html

Such a great idea! The response always seems to be more guns in more places.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by indes

I'm just not sure how they could change the law in an effective manner. I agree something should be done but have no idea what they could do short of banning non hunting specific rifles, which they wouldn't do because of the uproar it would cause. I'm just trying to point out that here in Canada I can go buy an AR-15 with my restricted license that is easily obtained. I can drive around with this in my truck;


I'm not sure changing the ease of getting these guns is going to stop the shootings. I think it will have to be done through education and awareness. Again just not sure how this is accomplished.

I'm not sure indes if you didn't respond to anyone because it's obvious the average person doesn't know or understand firearms but I see what point you are making here.

The firearm pictured is not an AR. It's a just right carbine, a line of pistol caliber rifles that are non restricted in Canada. Which means they can be transported no different from any other non restricted firearm, and discharged legally on private land, crown land, or if you want a range. They are very popular for plinking, target practice, and varminting.

[indes]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

I'm not sure indes if you didn't respond to anyone because it's obvious the average person doesn't know or understand firearms but I see what point you are making here.

The firearm pictured is not an AR. It's a just right carbine, a line of pistol caliber rifles that are non restricted in Canada. Which means they can be transported no different from any other non restricted firearm, and discharged legally on private land, crown land, or if you want a range. They are very popular for plinking, target practice, and varminting.

Absolutely agree with everything above. Was just trying to point out that many first world countries have easily accessible weapons capable of taking out a bunch of people. Most people here don't give a #### about guns whereas its a major part of their culture.



Just my speculation that bringing their gun laws in line with ours or other similar countries won't change much.

[2Stonedbirds]

Totally agree. And it's not the accessibility of firearms that causes these issues, it's demographics, it's poverty, it's creation of legislation that promotes illegal underground trade specifically for criminals that is the bigger part of the problem.

Interestingly, after the last shooting in Chattanooga, some officials have finally seen the light and overturned the useless Clinton era gun ban on their respective military bases. Six in total; I doubt we will see another mass shooting at any of them.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...07-18-14-43-54

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Totally agree. And it's not the accessibility of firearms that causes these issues, it's demographics, it's poverty, it's creation of legislation that promotes illegal underground trade specifically for criminals that is the bigger part of the problem.

Interestingly, after the last shooting in Chattanooga, some officials have finally seen the light and overturned the useless Clinton era gun ban on their respective military bases. Six in total; I doubt we will see another mass shooting at any of them.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...07-18-14-43-54

The whole point of going on a shooting spree is to get shot and die in a blaze of delusional glory, the absence or presence of guns makes no difference at all, they are also bugger all good for defence for at least the first minute or two, in fact all it does is increase the chances a disgruntled colleague decides to take out a bunch on top of the whack job stranger threat.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The whole point of going on a shooting spree is to get shot and die in a blaze of delusional glory, the absence or presence of guns makes no difference at all, they are also bugger all good for defence for at least the first minute or two, in fact all it does is increase the chances a disgruntled colleague decides to take out a bunch on top of the whack job stranger threat.

If the presence of guns makes no difference, how does the criminal expect to get shot and go down in a blaze of glory? You just contradicted yourself.

Citation needed on the second bolded claim.

[metallicat]

Even the armadillos are armed in Texas. Scary state.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/world/texas...face-1.3176390

[CroFlames]

I firmly believe the culture of guns, or how I like to call it, the CULT of guns is the problem in America. Yes you can make laws upon laws, but they will be ineffective over a generation. For instance, exhibit A:

Exhibit A:


People love their guns. They adore their guns. They get extraordinarily paranoid if someone mentions gun control. They believe that it's "liberals" thinly veiled attempt at "absolute control" when anyone mentions gun safety. Why would someone be wearing a lapel pin showing their support for a law from 200 years ago? It is a very strange obsession. Any time one brings up a very reasoned argument for gun control, gun enthusiasts and "Patriots" will argue semantics over fear mongering and the misrepresentation of gun types. Newsflash, it doesn't matter what you classify them as (see previous posts). An AR-15 is just, if not more deadly than an M16. One may not be classified as an assault rifle, but who gives a damn what the hell it's classified as?


The CULTURE of guns needs to change in America, and it begins with baby steps. Much like institutionalized racism ended, SSM being allowed, and other culture shifting changes are made through law changes, laws need to be introduced to promote the nasty side of guns. One day there will need to be a president bold enough to stand up to the lobbyists, and introduce laws such as (and these have been mentioned before):

- A ban on gun advertising (much like tobacco)
- Show statistical, scientific evidence of America's gun problem vs other developed countries on government sponsored TV ads.
- Promote a culture of lending a helping hand to your neighbor, instead of reaching for your gun immediately.

It would take at least a generation for the attitudes of guns to change, and that is what needs to happen.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Totally agree. And it's not the accessibility of firearms that causes these issues, it's demographics, it's poverty, it's creation of legislation that promotes illegal underground trade specifically for criminals that is the bigger part of the problem.

Interestingly, after the last shooting in Chattanooga, some officials have finally seen the light and overturned the useless Clinton era gun ban on their respective military bases. Six in total; I doubt we will see another mass shooting at any of them.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...07-18-14-43-54

I think you are undererestimating the effects of psychotropics, seem to fairly prevalent in US mass shootings. I'd like to see how many mass shootings were done under the influence of pharmaceuticals, touchy subject but there seems to be a correlation imo.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by CroFlames;5382840, exhibit A:

Exhibit A:
[IMG

https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/v/t1.0-9/11822571_1694007737489272_5023517715467031208_n.jp g?oh=b81c5bfe61b656bbf886fcaeecc34da8&oe=563D7477[/IMG]

People love their guns. They adore their guns. They get extraordinarily paranoid if someone mentions gun control. They believe that it's "liberals" thinly veiled attempt at "absolute control" when anyone mentions gun safety. Why would someone be wearing a lapel pin showing their support for a law from 200 years ago? It is a very strange obsession. Any time one brings up a very reasoned argument for gun control, gun enthusiasts and "Patriots" will argue semantics over fear mongering and the misrepresentation of gun types. Newsflash, it doesn't matter what you classify them as (see previous posts). An AR-15 is just, if not more deadly than an M16. One may not be classified as an assault rifle, but who gives a damn what the hell it's classified as?

I hate it when people use this in an arguement to defend guns. They don't even use it right. It's not just " The right to bear arms" it is " The right to bear arms in a well regulated militia". It doesn't actually constitute one persons rights to guns. The average Joe blow is not part of a regulated militia.

[CliffFletcher]

The problem with the U.S. is much of the country got democracy before it got civilization. So where most of the world lived in a orderly society where there was a monopoly of violence (and therefore much less violence), in the U.S., people were allowed to do as they please and reject all authority before they had a functioning state with laws and infrastructure and regulated commerce and all that good stuff. Then when civilization eventually came in the form of the state, these people - many of them religious refugees or other malcontents who immigrated to the U.S. to escape authority - were suspicious and frightened. Throw in a civil war that flooded the country with guns, and then bring to a boil with the racial hatred and fear awoken by the dismantling of Jim Crow and segregation, and you get the toxic stew of fear, tradition, and hatred that breeds gun culture.

[edn88]

Another theatre shooting... (Nashville)

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/05/us/ten...ing/index.html