Reaction to mass shootings

[Phoenix84]

I wanted to start a discussion over reactions to mass shootings, both public and private reactions.

One thing that always bothers me is blaming of things other than the shooter. People always want to blame the books he's read, the movies he watches, the guns he used or the flag or symbol he wears. They also want to blame "society" at large or in the most recent case on racial tensions or lack of racial reconciliation.

I get why people react this way. People are sad and angry and confused. They desperately want to know why this happened and want to prevent reoccurannce. But I don't think blaming anything other than the shooter really helps anyone. And even worse, I don't think passing legislation out of reaction to pain and grief is responsible governance.

I know many may not agree with me, but I don't think there's really anything you can do to prevent mass shootings, not unless you want to turn the nation into a police state. Unless you want to lock up anyone with a history of mental illness or confiscate all the guns in the country and make owning a gun illegal, and put under surveillance anyone who might be "weird" or "different," I think it's something we'll have to accept. Sometimes people break and feel the need to take the lives of others.

So instead of blaming everyone else, blame the individual responsible.

[HoneyBBQ]

I'm ok with making most of gun ownership illegal. Semi automatic weapons and hand guns should be illegal. I am ok with people owning manually loaded shotguns for their own protection (hopefully against bears).


There. Go to town.

[Tennesseer]

The blame always rests on the shoulders of the killer.

But what influnced the killer to act?  How and why did he get to point he needed to kill people?  The words written in a racist website (for example only) are incapable of killing anyone or thing.  But can it influence a person to act?

[grumpyhermit]

I read an article, I think it was on Salon, about this; how we shouldn't blame society, he was mentally ill, etc. But at the same time, isn't it amazing, that the people with issues, when they finally lose it, always seem to find targets that have been historically "acceptable" targets.

If there was not already an establish culture of diminishing blacks, would the shooter have taken them as targets? If this shooting occurred in the 30s-40s I think we can probably guess who the likely targets would have been.

So while it is ultimately on the shooter for his action, I don't think it is fair to remove him from his larger social context.

[Deleted]

I think guns should be regulated like cars. A graduated program, medical examination, much more education and practice, more frequent liscencing, a way to report if you think someone should have their access reassessed. 

[movingforward]

Jun 23, 2015 9:55:54 GMT -5 HoneyBBQ said:

I'm ok with making most of gun ownership illegal. Semi automatic weapons and hand guns should be illegal. I am ok with people owning manually loaded shotguns for their own protection (hopefully against bears).


There. Go to town.

This is EXACTLY how I feel.  There is absolutely NO reason why anyone needs a semi automatic weapon.  I have no problem with individuals having a gun in their home to protect their family and themselves.  You don't need a semi automatic weapon for that. 

I was deeply saddened by the latest mass shooting in SC (as I am whenever I hear about this type of incident).  Most of these types of shootings are done with legal weapons.  The person may steal them from their friend or relative but they are still a legal weapon.  Everyone always wants to talk about how the criminals are going to get weapons, etc.  This is true... they will still get weapons but I would like to see the statistics on how many illegal weapons are actually killing innocent people as opposed to legal ones (maybe I will look it up later - too lazy right now).  Seems like the illegal weapons are used by gangsters to kill other gangsters.  I could be wrong though. 

[grumpyhermit]

Jun 23, 2015 9:55:54 GMT -5 HoneyBBQ said:

I'm ok with making most of gun ownership illegal. Semi automatic weapons and hand guns should be illegal. I am ok with people owning manually loaded shotguns for their own protection (hopefully against bears).


There. Go to town.

I was having this conversation with a co-worker yesterday; her stance was very similar to yours. I just don't see how it will ever come to pass. We have had some very horrific mass shootings in this country in the last ten years, and not only have we not seen significant changes, we haven't even seen minor ones. Instead we have people insisting on open carry and the loosening of concealed carry laws.

I also don't know how you would effectively disarm the country - people would just hoard and hide their guns.

[steph08]

We have over a dozen guns in our house.

We've never shot anybody.

Not sure why guns are the issue here and not the individual who committed these acts.

[Deleted]

An individual can attack and kill, maybe one person before subdued by a crowd, but for the gun... 

Yes, Cain killed Abel with a rock. But he didn't kill everyone in the square. 

[grumpyhermit]

Jun 23, 2015 10:12:33 GMT -5 oped said:

An individual can attack and kill, maybe one person before subdued by a crowd, but for the gun... 

Yes, Cain killed Abel with a rock. But he didn't kill everyone in the square. 

Couldn't they just go the way of the suicide bombers though?  It would take more work, but those that are determined to kill large groups of people are probably going to find a way.

Don't get me wrong - I think we need serious gun reform in this country. It needs to be harder to obtain a fire-arm. A while back I was looking at getting a handgun for target practice, and I assumed it would take a few days at least. When I went to the gun store to look around, I was rather surprised when they said - oh no, we just run your license and you can take it same day.

[Deleted]

Most of them are too cowardly to kill themselves. 

[Phoenix84]

Jun 23, 2015 10:01:25 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

The blame always rests on the shoulders of the killer.

But what influnced the killer to act?  How and why did he get to point he needed to kill people?  The words written in a racist website (for example only) are incapable of killing anyone or thing.  But can it influence a person to act?

What if it did? Does that mean that speech should be banned?

We also have freedom of speech in this country.

As I said, I don't think you can stop mass shootings without turning the country into a police state.

Unfortunately, this is part of the price we have to pay to live in a free society.

[happyhoix]

One thing that always bothers me is blaming of things other than the shooter. People always want to blame the books he's read, the movies he watches, the guns he used or the flag or symbol he wears. They also want to blame "society" at large or in the most recent case on racial tensions or lack of racial reconciliation.

If you don't question why people do these kinds of things, you are accepting that they are not possible to thwart. I don't think most people want to concede that we are obligated to accept random mass killings as just a fact of life.

If you compare the number of mass murderers we have per capita and leave out the failed countries that are currently in civil war or under terrorist attack, we have a larger number of these kinds of events than other countries. I would be interested in finding out the root cause of that, because I don't want to accept that this is just what we have to live with.

[Deleted]

I'm with HoneyBBQ and movingforward. I just see no need for anyone but the military to have semi-automatic weapons. I don't have a big problem with hand gun or shot gun for personal protection.

Our gun control is pretty pathetic. The school shooter here took a gun from his father that was "legally" purchased by his father, a felon that was not allowed to own guns. The father just ticked off the box on the form that said he was legally allowed to have guns and somehow that made it through the state database and he was approved for purchase. What? Still waiting for the explanation on how the hell that happened. 

Might be the same thing in the SC shooting. If the shooter was the gun purchaser, with a recent felony on his record, he should not have been able to purchase the gun. If he did, how did that happen? Felony convictions don't make it into the database fast enough to actually stop the felon from being allowed to purchase weapons? 

[snapdragon]

To be honest - I'm surprised that he didn't build a bomb and just blow the whole church up. He just wanted to be closer and "feel" the connection as he pulled the trigger. He has issues that there is no doubt.

I am wondering about some of the issues with psychotic drugs and illegal drugs that have been used and have completely changed people's personalities with use. No one seems to even think about those or bring up the problems that have occurred. Maybe it's just easier to blame a gun instead of a big pharm company that makes a mind altering drug that increases the thought of suicide or changes the chemicals in the brain so much the previous person never would have thought about killing themselves or others.

[snapdragon]

Jun 23, 2015 10:23:04 GMT -5 @rockit said:

I'm with HoneyBBQ and movingforward. I just see no need for anyone but the military to have semi-automatic weapons. I don't have a big problem with hand gun or shot gun for personal protection.

Yeah, I have a issue with it.

One of the first things that the English did to Scotland was take away their weapons before waging war on them. The same thing with Nazi Germany and the Jews. They made it illegal for people to have protection against armed forces so they really had no chance.

[Tennesseer]

Jun 23, 2015 10:20:03 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Jun 23, 2015 10:01:25 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

The blame always rests on the shoulders of the killer.

But what influnced the killer to act?  How and why did he get to point he needed to kill people?  The words written in a racist website (for example only) are incapable of killing anyone or thing.  But can it influence a person to act?

What if it did? Does that mean that speech should be banned?

We also have freedom of speech in this country.

As I said, I don't think you can stop mass shootings without turning the country into a police state.

Unfortunately, this is part of the price we have to pay to live in a free society.

Have I even remotely said the speech in my example should be banned?

Are you aware there are exceptions to freedom of speech in the U.S.?

United States free speech exceptions

[grumpyhermit]

Jun 23, 2015 10:30:50 GMT -5 snapdragon said:

Jun 23, 2015 10:23:04 GMT -5 @rockit said:

I'm with HoneyBBQ and movingforward. I just see no need for anyone but the military to have semi-automatic weapons. I don't have a big problem with hand gun or shot gun for personal protection.

Yeah, I have a issue with it.

One of the first things that the English did to Scotland was take away their weapons before waging war on them. The same thing with Nazi Germany and the Jews. They made it illegal for people to have protection against armed forces so they really had no chance.

Do you really think if the combined US armed forces decided to wage war on the citizens of the country we would stand a chance? Warfare, and the weapons of warfare, are light years from even the 1940s.

[Bonny]

Jun 23, 2015 10:22:38 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

One thing that always bothers me is blaming of things other than the shooter. People always want to blame the books he's read, the movies he watches, the guns he used or the flag or symbol he wears. They also want to blame "society" at large or in the most recent case on racial tensions or lack of racial reconciliation.

If you don't question why people do these kinds of things, you are accepting that they are not possible to thwart. I don't think most people want to concede that we are obligated to accept random mass killings as just a fact of life.

If you compare the number of mass murderers we have per capita and leave out the failed countries that are currently in civil war or under terrorist attack, we have a larger number of these kinds of events than other countries. I would be interested in finding out the root cause of that, because I don't want to accept that this is just what we have to live with.

I think we'd also like to be able to tell when someone is headed in that direction and report it to an appropriate authority.

No guaranty that will help. The Santa Barbara shooter had multiple interactions with the police before he went on his spree.

So many young men full of so much hate. I don't understand it. I guess in the old days we sent them off to war?

[Deleted]

Jun 23, 2015 10:30:50 GMT -5 snapdragon said:

Jun 23, 2015 10:23:04 GMT -5 @rockit said:

I'm with HoneyBBQ and movingforward. I just see no need for anyone but the military to have semi-automatic weapons. I don't have a big problem with hand gun or shot gun for personal protection.

Yeah, I have a issue with it.

One of the first things that the English did to Scotland was take away their weapons before waging war on them. The same thing with Nazi Germany and the Jews. They made it illegal for people to have protection against armed forces so they really had no chance.

Do you have a drone? A tank? A nuke? Then you have no adequate protection against the armed forces.

[movingforward]

Jun 23, 2015 10:33:04 GMT -5 grumpyhermit said:

Jun 23, 2015 10:30:50 GMT -5 snapdragon said:

Yeah, I have a issue with it.

One of the first things that the English did to Scotland was take away their weapons before waging war on them. The same thing with Nazi Germany and the Jews. They made it illegal for people to have protection against armed forces so they really had no chance.

Do you really think if the combined US armed forces decided to wage war on the citizens of the country we would stand a chance? Warfare, and the weapons of warfare, are light years from even the 1940s.

[Deleted]

Jun 23, 2015 10:26:17 GMT -5 snapdragon said:

To be honest - I'm surprised that he didn't build a bomb and just blow the whole church up. He just wanted to be closer and "feel" the connection as he pulled the trigger. He has issues that there is no doubt.

I am wondering about some of the issues with psychotic drugs and illegal drugs that have been used and have completely changed people's personalities with use. No one seems to even think about those or bring up the problems that have occurred. Maybe it's just easier to blame a gun instead of a big pharm company that makes a mind altering drug that increases the thought of suicide or changes the chemicals in the brain so much the previous person never would have thought about killing themselves or others.

There is no indication that this shooter was on any prescribed drugs.

He did get arrested for having possession of un-prescribed drug addiction treatment medication. I assume that these have illegal trade since they create the same chemical brain reaction as the drug itself, but I don't know for sure.

You want to blame big pharma for people that illegally take drugs that would not be prescribed for them? You want the millions of people who are actually helped by drugs to be denied them because they don't work for everyone? I'm no fan of big pharma, but I'm not going to blame them for drug addicts that illegally use products OR suicidal people that still kill themselves despite medications. 

[hoops902]

::I read an article, I think it was on Salon, about this; how we shouldn't blame society, he was mentally ill, etc. But at the same time, isn't it amazing, that the people with issues, when they finally lose it, always seem to find targets that have been historically "acceptable" targets. ::

Do they?  I mean in this case yes, blacks were killed.  In other cases students at predominantly white schools were killed (multiple times), in another case people sitting in a movie theater, in another case college kids.  I'm not sure I agree that they "always seem to find targets that have been historically acceptable targets".

[siralynn]

Jun 23, 2015 10:20:03 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Jun 23, 2015 10:01:25 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

The blame always rests on the shoulders of the killer.

But what influnced the killer to act?  How and why did he get to point he needed to kill people?  The words written in a racist website (for example only) are incapable of killing anyone or thing.  But can it influence a person to act?

As I said, I don't think you can stop mass shootings without turning the country into a police state.

Australia managed to stop mass shootings, and they're certainly not a police state.

[hoops902]

On the gun thing, you're screwed if the government decides to come after you.  This isn't the 1700s.  You can't afford the kind of military technology the government has access to.  It made some sense back in the day, military guy has a gun, if I have a gun I can fight back if need be.  Now you have a gun, and the military guy is sitting in a fortified bunker flying a drone that will kill you before you even know the drone exists.  Maybe it will make your ego feel better if you're armed and you can feel like you're fighting back...but that's about the extent of it. 

[steph08]

Jun 23, 2015 10:23:04 GMT -5 @rockit said:

I'm with HoneyBBQ and movingforward. I just see no need for anyone but the military to have semi-automatic weapons. I don't have a big problem with hand gun or shot gun for personal protection.

Most handguns are semi-automatic. There are still revolvers obviously, but there are a lot more semi-automatic handguns out there.

Now automatic guns - I see no reason that the general public needs to have those at all.

[grumpyhermit]

Jun 23, 2015 10:52:09 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

::I read an article, I think it was on Salon, about this; how we shouldn't blame society, he was mentally ill, etc. But at the same time, isn't it amazing, that the people with issues, when they finally lose it, always seem to find targets that have been historically "acceptable" targets. ::

Do they?  I mean in this case yes, blacks were killed.  In other cases students at predominantly white schools were killed (multiple times), in another case people sitting in a movie theater, in another case college kids.  I'm not sure I agree that they "always seem to find targets that have been historically acceptable targets".

I could also be misremembering the article (it was more an opinion piece).  It was more about the instant reaction to dismiss these types of shootings as JUST signs of mental illness, while ignoring the larger societal role that may be at play. It could also just be complete shit. But it struck me at the time.



 

[snapdragon]

Jun 23, 2015 10:33:04 GMT -5 grumpyhermit said:

Jun 23, 2015 10:30:50 GMT -5 snapdragon said:

Yeah, I have a issue with it.

One of the first things that the English did to Scotland was take away their weapons before waging war on them. The same thing with Nazi Germany and the Jews. They made it illegal for people to have protection against armed forces so they really had no chance.

Do you really think if the combined US armed forces decided to wage war on the citizens of the country we would stand a chance? Warfare, and the weapons of warfare, are light years from even the 1940s.

I believe that there would be fractions happening in the government for that to occur. Than it would be crazy days anyway. Straight from the Declaration of Independence --

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principals and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. "

There is a reason our supreme piece of paper makes sure people were not left defenseless against it's government. It was very deliberate on the parts of the Founding Fathers. It's in a way similar to what the the Magna Carta did for England's land holders making King John sign concessions back in the 12th century. That is why we have a 3 part system of government. Checks and balances always.

[hoops902]

::There is a reason our supreme piece of paper makes sure people were not left defenseless against it's government. It was very deliberate on the parts of the Founding Fathers.::

But you also can't ignore historical context.  At that time, if we gave you a gun, you weren't really any different than a soldier in the army.

For all intents and purposes, you are defenseless today...even with the best gun you can possibly buy.  It would be like the founding fathers offering up butter knives to people as their right to bear arms against muskets. 

So in terms of fighting the government, if we give you a single shot handgun, or a fully automatic rifle, your chances are the same.  Given that, what purpose does the automatic rifle serve other than killing others?  Should we give every citizen a nuclear weapon?  Would you be in favor of that?  How about a fully functional sniper drone?

[grumpyhermit]

The Deceleration of Independence was written in a time when the weapons of war were equally balanced. We are for all intents and purposes defenseless against our government if it wants to attack us. No amount of stockpiled guns is going to change that.

I am also a bit of a pessimist in that I think our 3 part system of government lost its checks and balances a while ago. To me it seems more like bread and circuses at this point.