Gunman opens fire at Oregon mall

[valo403]

Originally Posted by polak

Call me desensitized but... again?

Has the US made any sort of effort to stop these types of shootings?

Seems like they think if they shut their ears the problem will just go away.

Well they didn't elect a Republican President, so that's a start.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Hmm, fun with percents! But if it happens in Canada, it is 1000% more likely to be you so I'm glad I'm here!

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...1#.UMeBqGt5mSM

So doing some rough math, it looks like on average 35,000 people die in car wrecks every year vs an average of 10 in mass shootings. So to completely eliminate mass shootings would save the same number of lives as reducing .029% of traffic deaths. Which sounds more cost effective and practical? Heck, putting up a few traffic lights and a couple guard rails would save more lives than putting up checks tops and metal detectors in every public venue.

LOL. I love a good, ridiculous false dilemma.

[Rhyme]

Cowperson's point is a good one--don't over-estimate the risk involved or sensationalize the topic and perpetuate a culture of fear that chokes social trust.

For my part, I think that calculations of odds and death rates miss the point, however. It's really a conversation of competing principles, not a numbers game.

Accidental automotive deaths, though high, don't evoke the same outrage because people overall find those risks to be acceptable. Drivers for the most part feel they have control over their own decisions, and we're all taught the risks involved in driving as teenagers. There are idiots and drunks who increase the risks for others, so we attempt to restrict those persons. We take these risks as reasonable--you don't often hear the media report a random car accident.

But you do hear reports about random shootings because we generally feel that these ought not to happen. A reasonable person should expect to go to the mall, the theatre, a political rally, the office, or the class room without the expectation of any risk of being killed without provocation or recourse. Any risk of a random gun death is an unreasonable one; it's a violation to the social contract.

An aside: dying by lightning strike is also random, which is why we teach ourselves and our children tactics to mitigate that risk, but ultimately we're not subject to the will of another person like in a shooting death.

So it’s the principle of dying at random in a mass shooting, not the numbers that matter. In the States that principle competes with another principle--the liberty to carry weapons. For those who hold that principle, the risk of a random gun death is reasonable. Or, they want to treat gun ownership like driving--arm everyone to make the personally responsible for their protection and educate them about the risks. The social contract should be upheld by mutual firepower not mutual trust.

For many in Canada, the principle of liberal weapons ownership seems senseless (a risk of greater overall harm). One mass shooting death is enough to warrant a response, even if more lives could be saved by mitigating the risks of car accidents by 0.36%. The risk is never zero (Dawson College) but you try to get there on principle.

My two cents.

[polak]

USA:

"Terrorism is a real problem, do you remember 9/11??? so yeah, feel free to throw away my rights to privacy and check out my naked body at the airport, or introduce bills that take a way rights from US citizens... Patriot Act! WOO! RE-ELECT THIS MAN."

"Psshh, the US only averages around 20 mass shootings a year. We don't need any sort of reform to our gun policies. How dare you..."

When you're looking at these stats, you shouldn't look at deaths specifically either. I'd look at events and not just deaths.

Edit: This post maybe childish, I just get frustrated when I see how non-chalant Americans are when it comes to this stuff.

[Hack&Lube]

It looks like the SWAT team assembled so quickly that many of them are still wearing jeans and sneakers? Or is this some kind of reserve or community unit?

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

It looks like the SWAT team assembled so quickly that many of them are still wearing jeans and sneakers? Or is this some kind of reserve or community unit?

I know some SWAT members have other roles in the dept or are former SWAT. Say a guy was an undercover guy, or a desk guy, and they had a major incident, they will join the team if they need additional bodies.

I have a friend who works regular patrol with the CPS and is a former TAC member. He is on call for TAC duty if ever needed. Same sorta deal.

[Sliver]

For some reason they look kind of cool with their jeans on. Like normal dudes that just happen to be extremely badass.

[Russic]

If we're going to use cars, wouldn't a more apt comparison to mass shootings be instances of people purposefully driving into a crowd of people?

[_Q_]

The way I look at it is guns are unnecessary in a civilized society and death can occur much more easily, even when those guns are in the hands of law abiding citizens. For example there was an incident a few years ago where my brother was threatened with a knife at a house party and the incident passed without harm to anyone because a friend surprised the attacker, wrestled him to the ground and took the knife from him. Had we all had guns at the party, I'm sure the attacker would have gotten shot which would have resulted in retaliatory fire from his friends and the party would have ended up with multiple deaths and several injuries plus thousands of dollars in property damage. It would have been an absolute tragedy if we had lived in the US.

[Hatter]

Originally Posted by _Q_

The way I look at it is guns are unnecessary in a civilized society and death can occur much more easily, even when those guns are in the hands of law abiding citizens. For example there was an incident a few years ago where my brother was threatened with a knife at a house party and the incident passed without harm to anyone because a friend surprised the attacker, wrestled him to the ground and took the knife from him. Had we all had guns at the party, I'm sure the attacker would have gotten shot which would have resulted in retaliatory fire from his friends and the party would have ended up with multiple deaths and several injuries plus thousands of dollars in property damage. It would have been an absolute tragedy if we had lived in the US.

That is the most ridiculous scenario of all time. Imagine if you all had bears!

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by rubecube

LOL. I love a good, ridiculous false dilemma.

How is it a false dilemma. It is an allocation of resource issue. Everyone always wants to spend a bunch of time and money to stop headline making atrocities. Why not spend that effort in a way that may actually save a significant amount of lives?

[polak]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

How is it a false dilemma. It is an allocation of resource issue. Everyone always wants to spend a bunch of time and money to stop headline making atrocities. Why not spend that effort in a way that may actually save a significant amount of lives?

Why does changing gun policy have effect things like highway safety?

[troutman]

Jon Stewart takes on critics of Bob Costas:

http://www.thecomedynetwork.ca/shows...Package=128149

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Rhyme

Cowperson's point is a good one--don't over-estimate the risk involved or sensationalize the topic and perpetuate a culture of fear that chokes social trust.

For my part, I think that calculations of odds and death rates miss the point, however. It's really a conversation of competing principles, not a numbers game.

Accidental automotive deaths, though high, don't evoke the same outrage because people overall find those risks to be acceptable. Drivers for the most part feel they have control over their own decisions, and we're all taught the risks involved in driving as teenagers. There are idiots and drunks who increase the risks for others, so we attempt to restrict those persons. We take these risks as reasonable--you don't often hear the media report a random car accident.

But you do hear reports about random shootings because we generally feel that these ought not to happen. A reasonable person should expect to go to the mall, the theatre, a political rally, the office, or the class room without the expectation of any risk of being killed without provocation or recourse. Any risk of a random gun death is an unreasonable one; it's a violation to the social contract.

An aside: dying by lightning strike is also random, which is why we teach ourselves and our children tactics to mitigate that risk, but ultimately we're not subject to the will of another person like in a shooting death.

So it’s the principle of dying at random in a mass shooting, not the numbers that matter. In the States that principle competes with another principle--the liberty to carry weapons. For those who hold that principle, the risk of a random gun death is reasonable. Or, they want to treat gun ownership like driving--arm everyone to make the personally responsible for their protection and educate them about the risks. The social contract should be upheld by mutual firepower not mutual trust.

For many in Canada, the principle of liberal weapons ownership seems senseless (a risk of greater overall harm). One mass shooting death is enough to warrant a response, even if more lives could be saved by mitigating the risks of car accidents by 0.36%. The risk is never zero (Dawson College) but you try to get there on principle.

My two cents.

How do you not post more? Very good post.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by polak

Why does changing gun policy have effect things like highway safety?

Well there is a finite amount of resources to go around, so it's sort of an argument, but unless you actually go into the issue and assess costs etc. it's more of a cop out than anything else.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by polak

Why does changing gun policy have effect things like highway safety?

I don't see these as good examples of how gun controls could help. They tend to be pre-meditated, and well planned. Even in Canada, with some planning and effort, you could get yourself a weapon capable of killing a bunch of people in a crowd. And also, these events are so statiscally insignificant, they should not be used to set any kind of policy.

So my argument was based on spending resources protecting public places vs. spending it elsewhere. But gun control would take time and money too...

I'm more or less in favor of gun controls, but just think preventing mass shootings are a poor example to point to as an argument for them.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Hatter

That is the most ridiculous scenario of all time. Imagine if you all had bears!

There has never been a scenario where everyone at a house party had bears. I'm sure, though, some shootings in the US have occurred because of something small that had escalated into something bigger. I fail to see what you're getting at.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I don't see these as good examples of how gun controls could help. They tend to be pre-meditated, and well planned. Even in Canada, with some planning and effort, you could get yourself a weapon capable of killing a bunch of people in a crowd. And also, these events are so statiscally insignificant, they should not be used to set any kind of policy.

So my argument was based on spending resources protecting public places vs. spending it elsewhere. But gun control would take time and money too...

I'm more or less in favor of gun controls, but just think preventing mass shootings are a poor example to point to as an argument for them.

I think the role of gun control in the elimination of mass shootings is the removal of gun culture in general. In Canada, you tend to have less of the population owning guns in general because it's just not seen as a fundamental aspect of who we are as a people. Really, if you're the type of person who collects guns as a hobby and is super proud of it, you're generally regarded as a redneck. This tends to be pretty common across countries with stricter gun control laws.

Generally, you can pretty much chalk this up to cultural norms and legislation mirroring each other. If you want to go back to your automotive example, we've generally seen a decrease in drunk-driving since harsher DUI penalties have been implemented. I don't think that's a deterrent effect as much as it is society aligning itself with legislation, or vice-versa.

I think there's also a risk vs. reward argument to be had here if you're going to compare guns to vehicles. Vehicles have a dramatic effect on our quality of life, so in some sense the risks they contain are justified. Please explain to me the net positive effect on quality of life that is gained by the general public having access to handguns and assault rifles.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Rhyme

There are idiots and drunks who increase the risks for others, so we attempt to restrict those persons. We take these risks as reasonable--you don't often hear the media report a random car accident

But you do hear reports about random shootings because we generally feel that these ought not to happen. A reasonable person should expect to go to the mall, the theatre, a political rally, the office, or the class room without the expectation of any risk of being killed without provocation or recourse. Any risk of a random gun death is an unreasonable one; it's a violation to the social contract.

I agree with your overall point, but I think you're not being entirely consistent in what you're calling "random." A crazy guy shooting people in a shopping mall is no more nor less random than a drunk driver crossing into opposing traffic and taking out a family.

If only we could get the mass shooters to focus their craziness on drunk drivers...

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Hmm, fun with percents! But if it happens in Canada, it is 1000% more likely to be you so I'm glad I'm here!

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...1#.UMeBqGt5mSM

So doing some rough math, it looks like on average 35,000 people die in car wrecks every year vs an average of 10 in mass shootings. So to completely eliminate mass shootings would save the same number of lives as reducing .029% of traffic deaths. Which sounds more cost effective and practical? Heck, putting up a few traffic lights and a couple guard rails would save more lives than putting up checks tops and metal detectors in every public venue.

Mass shootings draw all the attention, of course--but gun violence on a smaller scale is also a big problem in the US. I don't even live in a terribly dangerous city, and yet nearly every day on the news there is at least one report of a shooting. In more dangerous cities (Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit) those incidents are much higher. Those are also gun-related deaths and should be added to the conversation.

Not all car accidents are 20 car pileups, and not all gun-related events are mass shootings.