Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The mass killings wouldn't be as spectacular in body count so in a way your right they would reduce. But believe me they would still happen. People have been finding ways to poison each other, stab each other and blugeon each other since the beginning of time.

I kind of doubt this. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and he did so without using a gun. You look at how he planned his attack and it certainly doesn't seem like an unrepeatable strategy.

I really don't think it's fair to assume that if you take guns away mass shootings would not turn into something far worse. Bombs can be made by through conventional materials that can't reasonably be banned.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by valo403

Okay now you're just getting crazy. When was the last time you heard of a truly mass killing that used anything but a firearm or explosive? When has their ever been a mass killing involving Wil-E-Coyote methods?

The whole argument here is that the removal of guns drastically reduces the ability of anyone to perpetrate a mass killing, and I see nothing that counters that besides some fanciful notions of elaborate plans involving cartoons. People will still kill each other, nobody has said otherwise, but without firearms the ability to do so on a mass scale is drastically reduced.

8 Chinese Children stabbed to death in their school.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ed-death-china

[valo403]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

8 Chinese Children stabbed to death in their school.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ed-death-china

Yep, 8 vs. 26 at Sandy Hook.

[GoinAllTheWay]

You asked a question, I answered. What's the cutoff number for a mass killing in your books?

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I kind of doubt this. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and he did so without using a gun. You look at how he planned his attack and it certainly doesn't seem like an unrepeatable strategy.

I really don't think it's fair to assume that if you take guns away mass shootings would not turn into something far worse. Bombs can be made by through conventional materials that can't reasonably be banned.

So you're saying that mass shootings with guns is a good thing, because the alternative will be far more devastating bombings?

Your post is a bit confusing so I'm just trying to figure out what you are saying.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Humanity has a thrill kill gene that not many other creatures that we share the planet with have.

You know, except for dolphins, cats, chimps, birds, etc.

Also, the rest of your post is largely conjecture. There have been a number of studies that have pointed to a dramatic decrease in violence among the human species compared to previous points in history. One of the many reasons speculated for this is a stronger state presence and the resulting norms that come from well-enforced regulations.

[Street Pharmacist]

Yes tragedies will still happen. At the end of the conversation, there's pretty obvious evidence that overall deaths would reduce significantly. In fact, thousands more people would be alive today if there were no guns. In not sure how anyone can argue that fact.

Sure, make an argument about the feasibility, moral/lawful difficulties in removing firearms. Heck, talk about all the other ways people get killed. How can anyone say though, with any sort of straight face, that just as many people would die? That's ludicrous

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

So you're saying that mass shootings with guns is a good thing, because the alternative will be far more devastating bombings?

Your post is a bit confusing so I'm just trying to figure out what you are saying.

There's nothing confusing about my post at all. My issue is with people that say if there were no guns, mass shootings would just turn into 1-2 people getting stabbed, or result in no deaths at all. I think that assumption is pretty naïve. What drives mass shootings is a compulsion to kill, not guns themselves. Guns are just a means to accomplish this. To suggest that if guns are taken out of the equation, people with severe mental issues would suddenly not seek a release is asinine.

I'll make this more clear for you. I am not advocating gun ownership, nor am I making any argument against gun control and I am most certainly not suggesting that mass shootings are good, as your idiotic post above suggests.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Ark2

There's nothing confusing about my post at all. My issue is with people that say if there were no guns, mass shootings would just turn into 1-2 people getting stabbed, or result in no deaths at all. I think that assumption is pretty naïve. What drives mass shootings is a compulsion to kill, not guns themselves. Guns are just a means to accomplish this. To suggest that if guns are taken out of the equation, people with severe mental issues would suddenly not seek a release is asinine.

Yes, and wearing a seatbelt doesn't completely eliminate deaths in automobile accidents. That doesn't mean it's stupid to wear them.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

You asked a question, I answered. What's the cutoff number for a mass killing in your books?

I don't think there's a particular number, but the point is quite clear, the absence of a firearm drastically reduces the number of casualties in an incident that shares a number of the same characteristics.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yes, and wearing a seatbelt doesn't completely eliminate deaths in automobile accidents. That doesn't mean it's stupid to wear them.

Your analogy would be relevant if I were arguing against gun control (or living in a mystical world where guns don't exist), however...

Originally Posted by Ark2

I'll make this more clear for you. I am not advocating gun ownership, nor am I making any argument against gun control and I am most certainly not suggesting that mass shootings are good, as your idiotic post above suggests.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by valo403

I don't think there's a particular number, but the point is quite clear, the absence of a firearm drastically reduces the number of casualties in an incident that shares a number of the same characteristics.

I would also argue that someone attempting a killing spree with a hand-held weaepon like a knife would be much easier for the authorities to stop and detain than a person with a gun. And, not that I codone this sort of thing, it would make it easier for the odd regular citizen(s) to stop the killer.

I don't know that anyone is arguing that eliminating guns would stop people from killing each other, but the fact that it is much easier to kill multiple people (much less one person) with a gun than any hand-held weapon. AND I would argue that guns make it psychologically and physiologically easier on the killer to take someone out. IE shooting someone versus stabbing them to death is much less personal and messy for the killer. I believe this would instantly cut out quite a few killers who seem to think life is a video game.

Some people would still snap and find ways for mass murder to happen (like bombs or the like) but, to my knowledge, possessing those types of things isn't legal without some pretty strict licensing. Obviously people can make bombs and such on their own, but there's really not a lot you can do about that.

[Ozy_Flame]

I would venture to say that people commit crimes with guns largely because they can do so from a distance. Guns tend to neutralize any counter attack by civilians by virtue of their deadly nature and how easy they are to fire off with relatively little physical effort. People don't commit knife sprees nearly as often because then there is a greater chance they'll have to defend themselves in a physical confrontation with targeted victims.

Another perspective - when people commit rampages, a good chunk of them are looking to kill themselves at the end of it (and have done so in the past). The advantage with the gun is that it can be instant death. I almost guarantee criminals on a rampage would be less likely to slit their own throat or gut themselves because death is likely not as sudden and is far more painful. Rampagers use the gun as an easy way out of the situation without getting captured.

Also, most people looking to hurt someone are not going to develop a bomb to do it. If it isn't a gun, it's a blunt-force object. The fact that this Dallas guy had a grenade though, that's scary ####.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

In fact, thousands more people would be alive today if there were no guns. In not sure how anyone can argue that fact.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't buy the argument that taking away the gun will reduce deaths. It will merely redirect the way that we kill.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Ark2

My issue is with people that say if there were no guns, mass shootings would just turn into 1-2 people getting stabbed, or result in no deaths at all.

who said that?

[smoothpops]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

In a world without guns we'd find another way. Man's predatory instincts are far beyond any other species on this planet.


We're a species who has based a large chunk of science on better ways to kill people.

I don't buy the argument that taking away the gun will reduce deaths. It will merely redirect the way that we kill.

Murders would still happen, people going nuts and killing in numbers would still happen.

The human being is a killer covered in a velvet glove.

The argument against this can be found in this actual incident. When the attacker had a gun and bullets, people died. When he ran out of bullets, there were survivors. He had the intent, but ran out of the means. That's why those kids survived. We're just looking for even less people to have the "means", that's all. If some responsible gun owners get caught in the cross hairs, that's unfortunate, but the bad apples are the ones to blame not us, (obviously grenades are no good too).

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I kind of doubt this. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and he did so without using a gun. You look at how he planned his attack and it certainly doesn't seem like an unrepeatable strategy.

I really don't think it's fair to assume that if you take guns away mass shootings would not turn into something far worse. Bombs can be made by through conventional materials that can't reasonably be banned.

Building and detonating a bomb takes vastly more planning, preparation, and coordination than grabbing an easily available gun and killing a bunch of people which is what most shootings are.

Here's a partial list of mass shootings in the US over the last 2 years. How many of these would've likely occurred if the perpetrator had to successfully build, conceal, and detonate a bomb instead of using an easily accessible firearm? All but one of these crimes was done with a legally obtained gun:


Hialeah Apartment shooting: A man kills 6 people in his apartment complex.

Santa Monica shooting: A man kills his brother and father, car jacks someone, and then shoots up a college.

Pinewood Village Apartment shooting: A man kills his girlfriend and then 3 witnesses.

Mohawk Valley shootings: A man goes on a rampage killing 6 people in three different towns.

Accent Signage Systems shooting: A fired employee kills his boss, three co-workers, and a UPS driver

Seattle cafe shooting: A man kills 4 people in a cafe and then another person in a carjacking.

Oikos University shooting: A former student kills 7 people in a nursing classroom.

Seal Beach shooting: A man kills 8 people inside a hair salon.

IHOP shooting: A man kills 4 and wounds 7 at an IHOP.


Yeah, some people will find another way, but the easy access to guns plays a huge role in both the number and severity of mass attacks in the United States.

[Flash Walken]

If you take away guns, people will still find elaborate methods of dropping Piano's from a significant height on groups of bystanders.

There is nothing to be done but throw our arms in the air and preserve the status quo.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

If you take away guns, people will still find elaborate methods of dropping Piano's from a significant height on groups of bystanders.

There is nothing to be done but throw our arms in the air and preserve the status quo.

"if something's hard to do it's not worth doing"

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

If you take away guns, people will still find elaborate methods of dropping Piano's from a significant height on groups of bystanders.

There is nothing to be done but throw our arms in the air and preserve the status quo.

Let's not forget baseball bats. If there were less guns, what's to stop someone from going on a baseball bat swinging rampage? Which obviously would result in the same number of deaths as a gun rampage.