Yet another mass shooting...

[Slojo]

So when someone carrying an illegal firearm comes to rape and kill my children and myself am I supposed to explain to the guy that I gave my gun up to law enforcement and could he please have a seat while I phone the police?

 

Slache, I really hope that doesn't happen to your family. That said, that scenario could play out a thousand ways. Unless you are a police officer or a Navy Seal, it is entirely possible that you'd overestimate your ability to control the situation. Too many unknowns -- one of your kids could dart in the way/in the line of fire, you could lose control of the weapon, etc.... So, I'm not going to take your question "seriously" because it wasn't offered up as a serious solution to one of the most horrific (and statistically rare) scenarios imaginable. I guess for me, the best I could hope for is that I'd put my body in harm's way to be raped and beaten, giving my children a chance to escape. And if I fail, I fail... but I don't see how that makes me less brave or virtuous than you. 

 

But let's not dwell too much on that in either of our futures, okay?

[Slojo]

What?! There is a LOT of moral ambiguity about illegal drugs. Pot, anyone? Illegal prescription use, anyone? There's a LOT of evidence that making drugs illegal has done nothing more than perpetuate addiction and create revenue for private prisons and accomplished very little by way of actually making our society less addicted. It hasn't removed drugs or drug problems from society. Never mind that a lot of addicts get that way bc they are self medicating problems our society either won't or can't help in healthier ways. Vets with PTSD for example.

 

And don't screw that I'm pro legal drugs. I actually am not most of the time. But the "war on drugs" has been an abysmal failure as far as I can tell.

I didn't mean to oversimplify, but I think that the actual examples of countries that have tried some form of restrictions bears some thought. But really, we can keep our flipping guns, with no changes, and keep getting the same results over and over again. Can I officially call BS on "all the thoughts and prayers" then?

[Slache]

Slache, I really hope that doesn't happen to your family. That said, that scenario could play out a thousand ways. Unless you are a police officer or a Navy Seal, it is entirely possible that you'd overestimate your ability to control the situation. Too many unknowns -- one of your kids could dart in the way/in the line of fire, you could lose control of the weapon, etc.... So, I'm not going to take your question "seriously" because it wasn't offered up as a serious solution to one of the most horrific (and statistically rare) scenarios imaginable. I guess for me, the best I could hope for is that I'd put my body in harm's way to be raped and beaten, giving my children a chance to escape. And if I fail, I fail... but I don't see how that makes me less brave or virtuous than you.

 

But let's not dwell too much on that in either of our futures, okay?

I grew up in a bad neighborhood. I might not be here if it wasn't for civilians carrying firearms. I don't care to share the story, but I was 8 and should have died. Statistics mean nothing in a truly crime ridden area. Anyone who wants a gun will get one. I have the right to protect myself, my family, and my neighbors.

[Slojo]

I grew up in a bad neighborhood. I might not be here if it wasn't for civilians carrying firearms. I don't care to share the story, but I was 8 and should have died. Statistics mean nothing in a truly crime ridden area. Anyone who wants a gun will get one. I have the right to protect myself, my family, and my neighbors.

I respect your right not to share your story - it's your story. But lots of us grew up in bad neighborhoods. There's not one viewpoint for all folks who grew up in bad neighborhoods. Do what you have to do, but the country may need to move on to some stricter gun laws -- and you may or may not decide to adjust with it. It is what it is, but I'm turning my energies toward imagining the healed future. 

[Slache]

I respect your right not to share your story - it's your story. But lots of us grew up in bad neighborhoods. There's not one viewpoint for all folks who grew up in bad neighborhoods. Do what you have to do, but the country may need to move on to some stricter gun laws -- and you may or may not decide to adjust with it. It is what it is, but I'm turning my energies toward imagining the healed future.

Oh, I'm not opposed to gun laws at all, depending on the law. Just don't tell me we should all give our guns up because that's not an answer. We need a solution to this. The fact that this keeps happening is a joke. I'll take tests, I'll register, I'll take classes. I have taken classes actually. Just don't take my guns and expect me to live among gun carrying criminals. That's not fair.

[Seasider]

Press conference. Strange that they're not ruling out terrorism. A number of potential indicators? What?

Terrorism could be domestic or foreign. I'm guessing one indicator is the tactical attire, indicating premeditation. Also there was apparently a search of a house in the area, it's possible something there (computer files even?) may be grounds for terrorism remaining a possibility.

[Guest]

Slache, I really hope that doesn't happen to your family. That said, that scenario could play out a thousand ways. Unless you are a police officer or a Navy Seal, it is entirely possible that you'd overestimate your ability to control the situation. Too many unknowns -- one of your kids could dart in the way/in the line of fire, you could lose control of the weapon, etc.... So, I'm not going to take your question "seriously" because it wasn't offered up as a serious solution to one of the most horrific (and statistically rare) scenarios imaginable. I guess for me, the best I could hope for is that I'd put my body in harm's way to be raped and beaten, giving my children a chance to escape. And if I fail, I fail... but I don't see how that makes me less brave or virtuous than you.

 

But let's not dwell too much on that in either of our futures, okay?

So I should give up my best chance at equalizing force in an assault situation because someone else is afraid of my firearm? No thanks.

 

Civilians trying to protect themselves and one another aren't the ones causing these statistics - why are so many posters on here bent on creating straw men and ignoring that the problem isn't a mom with her handgun?

 

Why can't the focus just be on terrorists and criminals and not everyone else and their desire to protect themselves? This is bs and I'm sick of it. Every time there is a shooting the finger gets pointed at the NRA or normal people who had jack to do with illegally obtained or discharged firearms. We aren't the enemies, and directing disgust, sadness, or even legal efforts at us doesn't solve the problem.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Arctic Mama

[December]

ignoring that the problem isn't a mom with her handgun?

 

 

 

Except for when the mom is part of the problem.  Sandy Hook and the Umpqaa CC shooting come to mind.  

[Tanaqui]

Oh, I'm not opposed to gun laws at all, depending on the law. Just don't tell me we should all give our guns up because that's not an answer. We need a solution to this. The fact that this keeps happening is a joke. I'll take tests, I'll register, I'll take classes. I have taken classes actually. Just don't take my guns and expect me to live among gun carrying criminals. That's not fair.

 

We average a mass shooting every day.

 

Does Japan have this problem? England? Sweden, Finland, Canada? No, they don't.Of course they don't! We all know it. The US is the only developed nation where this regularly happens. So I don't know about you, but I think it's worth looking into what all those other places do differently from us. And if the answer is that they were able to get the guns out of the hands of criminals, then surely we can do it too.

[GinaPagnato]

So the male/female duo had recently been married. They met when he traveled to Saudi Arabia for a month, which leads us to believe the guy had been radicalized (either before his trip or while there) considering he seemed normal until then. Very possible that she was on assignment and they "married" so as to more easily accomplish their jihad.

 

They had a plan and an arsenal. They were terrorists.

 

This wasn't workplace violence. Give me a break.

 

And gun laws don't stop radicalized jihadists. They are funded and supplied by terrorist cells abroad who don't much care about background checks.

[Amira]

While I obviously don't know the motive here, no matter what the motive is, this shooting is very similar to all the other workplace/mass shootings we've seen in the US over the last few decades. Several people working together, planting explosives, wearing body armor, using assault-style weapons, planning ahead in detail, that's all happened before, although nearly always by single white men, not a married Muslim couple. After it happens, we always say there's not much we can do to stop it, that the bad guys will always be able to find a way to hurt people.

I will be very interested to see the reaction to this, whether the fact that Muslims did this means that all of a sudden there is something we can or must do about this. It makes no sense to me that we should have any more of a problem with this shooting that any other than has happened. Sure, we don't like any of the shootings, but in reality, this wasn't that different.

Maybe we just need a wider demographic of mass shooters, or to start calling them all terrorists no matter their demographic, and maybe we'll do something about the easy access to guns in this country.

Or maybe we'll call these two people terrorists, but not call any of the other mass shooters terrorists, and just target people of a certain demographic because obviously white people and their guns are safe.

 

ETA that I don't mean that this level of planning and/or coordination happens often, or that all of the elements I mentioned happen together very often, but all of the pieces aren't unique to this particular incident.  If this is terrorism, we've been ignoring terrorist attacks on our soil for decades.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Amira

[Word Nerd]

I don't believe for a minute this was spontaneous. They dropped the baby off with the grandmother and told her they had doctor's appointments. Instead, the man went to the work event, then left the party early and returned with his wife, and both were dressed and heavily armed for an attack.

 

I think people are making too much of the fact he had an altercation of some kind with someone at the party. Other witnesses reported he was acting strangely and very quiet during the party. It seems much more likely he was on edge knowing what he planned to do than that a spat at the party caused him to snap.

[Aelwydd]

 

 

Here's what I think. I think gun-shaming contributes to violence and leads to more fatalities. These shootings are so deadly because the intended victims cannot defend themselves. They were all sitting ducks and the building was a "soft target" for those looking to do harm because it was widely know that they were defenseless. I am NOT blaming the victims, so don't even go there. I am saying that our culture's growing anti-gun sentiment and BS gun-free zones made the murderers' jobs a whole lot easier.

You are so right. If only those people, who were in a mental health clinic, had guns. Because the only way to stop bad crazy people with guns is to arm the good crazy people.

[Seasider]

So a radio commentator just used the phrase "workplace jihad."

[GinaPagnato]

While I obviously don't know the motive here, no matter what the motive is, this shooting is very similar to all the other workplace shootings we've seen in the US over the last few decades. Several people working together, planting explosives, wearing body armor, using assault-style weapons, planning ahead in detail, that's all happened before, although nearly always by single white men, not a married Muslim couple. After it happens, we always say there's not much we can do to stop it, that the bad guys will always be able to find a way to hurt people.

 

I will be very interested to see the reaction to this, whether the fact that Muslims did this means that all of a sudden there is something we can or must do about this. It makes no sense to me that we should have any more of a problem with this shooting that any other than has happened. Sure, we don't like any of the shootings, but in reality, this wasn't that different.

 

Maybe we just need a wider demographic of mass shooters, or to start calling them all terrorists no matter their demographic, and maybe we'll do something about the easy access to guns in this country.

 

Or maybe we'll call these two people terrorists, but not call any of the other mass shooters terrorists, and just target people of a certain demographic because obviously white people and their guns are safe.

 

Why did you make this about race?

If these people were jihadists then it's got nothing to do with race; it's about IDEOLOGY. And anybody can subscribe to that ideology, whether they are white, brown, black, blue, purple or green.

Honestly, until people wake up and realize that these extremists WANT to kill us, we'll all be at their mercy.

 

When the U.S. is called "The Big Satan" and Israel is called "The Little Satan", it's pretty clear what their end-game is. And this isn't limited to one country or another. When these espoused views are internalized by ANYONE of ANY RACE, the result is deep hatred and a twisted belief that they are doing a great and heroic deed when they murder innocent people.

 

And you say this rampage wasn't any different than any other. You're right in the sense that the taking of life is the taking of life, regardless of motive. However, there's a difference in the impetus behind a disturbed lone individual like the guy in S.C. who killed all those people in the church, versus a growing ideology espoused by regimes and "spiritual" leaders. The end result may be similar in terms of the fact that innocent people have been killed, but the power behind the movement is growing and we better open our eyes.

 

Now, of course we haven't yet been told by police what the motive was. They're being decidedly cautious about releasing details. But based on what I've read so far, I would be surprised if it wasn't Islamic terrorism.

[Slache]

A 5AM rambling...

 

Why don't we have training courses so those that choose to carry will be trained on what to do in a shooting. I'm an excellent shot, and willing to risk my life in such a situation, but that doesn't mean I'd make the right decision in a heated moment. How would criminals feel if they were surrounded by trained, armed protectors that they couldn't identify.

[Pam in CT]

So a radio commentator just used the phrase "workplace jihad."

 

Good grief.  Perhaps that'll catch on, cross over to the mainstream, and replace the phrase "going postal."  

 

 

 

Since it couldn't possibly make matters worse, perhaps such a re-frame might widen the lens and ultimately help us move from where we are to a better place?  We all face workplace struggles, yet most of us manage to use our words to resolve such struggles....   Hope springs eternal.

[unsinkable]

While I obviously don't know the motive here, no matter what the motive is, this shooting is very similar to all the other workplace shootings we've seen in the US over the last few decades. Several people working together, planting explosives, wearing body armor, using assault-style weapons, planning ahead in detail, that's all happened before, although nearly always by single white men, not a married Muslim couple. After it happens, we always say there's not much we can do to stop it, that the bad guys will always be able to find a way to hurt people.

 

 

I don't think this is correct. Most "workplace shootings" in the US are not "several people working together, planting explosives," etc. It is not similar to "all the other workplace shootings..."

 

If it by a co-worker (and not a robbery-homicide or a domestic violence assault/homicide) it is usually a man* working alone. I am not able to find workplace shootings like described, with several people working together.

 

* I do remember a female professor, working alone, who killed her co -workers.

[Word Nerd]

It's my understanding that the clients are developmentally disabled, not "crazy." The staff members (the targets of this attack) are probably not mentally ill either, don't you think?

Staff members weren't targeted either from what I understand. This happened at a county health department event at the center's rental facility. He didn't work at the center; that's where the party was held.

[Laura Corin]

I'm not looking up the stats, but I could venture to guess that the total populations of all of those nations put together would probably not equal that of the U.S. More people, more confilct. Also, the U.S. has many different kiinds of people vs some of those listed, and that leads to even more conflict.

 

We also have a Bill of Rights. We fought England for our freedom, and many are not willing to lose even one of those hard-won rights.

 

For information: the UK has had three mass shootings since 1987.  The US has a population about five times that of the UK.  Has the US had only fifteen mass shootings since 1987?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Great_Britain

 

The UK, partly due to its colonial history, has a very diverse population.  At the time of the London Olympics, there were more languages spoken in the local schools than in the athletes' village.

 

Yes: we don't have a bill of rights, and without that, we have the flexibility to adapt to changed circumstances.  I wouldn't want one that would constrain my country's development in the way that the US is constrained.

[Valley Girl]

I don't think this is correct. Most "workplace shootings" in the US are not "several people working together, planting explosives," etc. It is not similar to "all the other workplace shootings..."

 

If it by a co-worker (and not a robbery-homicide or a domestic violence assault/homicide) it is usually a man* working alone. I am not able to find workplace shootings like described, with several people working together.

 

* I do remember a female professor, working alone, who killed her co -workers.

 

I just read a report that said the shooters were wearing cameras and that it wasn't known if they'd had time to download the footage. I do not for one second believe this was a "workplace shooting."

[Amira]

I don't think this is correct. Most "workplace shootings" in the US are not "several people working together, planting explosives," etc. It is not similar to "all the other workplace shootings..."

 

If it by a co-worker (and not a robbery-homicide or a domestic violence assault/homicide) it is usually a man* working alone. I am not able to find workplace shootings like described, with several people working together.

 

* I do remember a female professor, working alone, who killed her co -workers.

 

No, most aren't, but nothing that happened here hasn't happened before and we didn't do anything about it then.  Maybe we won't now either, but I suspect the reaction to this one will be different.

[Minerva]

But, if someone with ill-intent starts shooting, you are defenseless.  I mean, really, what are your options?  Hide and pray?  Not a bad idea, but a better option is that there's someone nearby with good aim that shoots BACK.

 

I wish our culture wasn't becoming increasingly violent.  I hate it!  But, that's the reality at this point in time.  Arming the  (law-abiding) masses evens the playing field somewhat. 

 

I ask this sincerely, if this is true, wouldn't the US already be the safest country in the world? 

Edited December 3, 2015 by Minerva

[Slache]

I ask this sincerely, if this is true, wouldn't the US already be the safest in the world?

Most shootings happen in gun free zones.

[Amira]

Why did you make this about race?

If these people were jihadists then it's got nothing to do with race; it's about IDEOLOGY. And anybody can subscribe to that ideology, whether they are white, brown, black, blue, purple or green.

Honestly, until people wake up and realize that these extremists WANT to kill us, we'll all be at their mercy.

 

When the U.S. is called "The Big Satan" and Israel is called "The Little Satan", it's pretty clear what their end-game is. And this isn't limited to one country or another. When these espoused views are internalized by ANYONE of ANY RACE, the result is deep hatred and a twisted belief that they are doing a great and heroic deed when they murder innocent people.

 

And you say this rampage wasn't any different than any other. You're right in the sense that the taking of life is the taking of life, regardless of motive. However, there's a difference in the impetus behind a disturbed lone individual like the guy in S.C. who killed all those people in the church, versus a growing ideology espoused by regimes and "spiritual" leaders. The end result may be similar in terms of the fact that innocent people have been killed, but the power behind the movement is growing and we better open our eyes.

 

Now, of course we haven't yet been told by police what the motive was. They're being decidedly cautious about releasing details. But based on what I've read so far, I would be surprised if it wasn't Islamic terrorism.

 

I would argue that the lone guy in SC was killing people to promote his ideological views.

 

I think that people who target Planned Parenthood because they perform abortions are using violence to promote their ideological views.

 

I think that anti-government people who target LEOs are working from their ideological views.

 

There are lots of extremists out there who want to use violence to promote their agenda.  If we want to profile, it seems more reasonable to target US-born single men because they have committed most of the ideology-based violence in the US.  

 

Or we could simply make it harder for people to commit attacks like this in the US by making it harder to for anyone to get, at the very least, weapons that can easily and quickly kill a lot of people.

[Vera]

If you have well intentioned armed people shooting back, how are the police supposed to tell the difference? How are the other well intentioned armed people supposed to tell the difference?

[ikuradesuka]

I was up late last night, long after everyone else in my house was asleep.  I don't get on here much, but I thought I would see if anyone was talking about the shooting, because I was hoping to process it a bit in my own mind.  I was pleased to see there was a thread, and then I read it.

 

And I was terribly sad to read that it was mostly arguing about gun control and being ugly back and forth.  

 

I decided to post just because I hope that everyone reading can just take a breath and take a minute to just let this be about what happened, and not about pointing fingers and arguing.  We all wish there was some way to prevent this, but erupting into a debate before the shooters are even caught is....I don't even know what.  I suppose it is indicative of the divisive climate in the U.S., which is something we should all be looking to heal, rather than to deepen.

 

So, from a mostly stranger, please accept this call of peace and respectful and slow communication.  Our words and actions can be measured on both sides, and logic must rule over emotion, for both sides.

Edited December 3, 2015 by ikuradesuka

[Slache]

If you have well intentioned armed people shooting back, how are the police supposed to tell the difference? How are the other well intentioned armed people supposed to tell the difference?

You don't just shoot random people. Typically it's obvious who the bad guy is and an armed citizen would stand down when police arrive.

[Aelwydd]

It's my understanding that the clients are developmentally disabled, not "crazy." The staff members (the targets of this attack) are probably not mentally ill either, don't you think?

I don't know the health history of the workers. The people they serve include some with mental illness (according to certain news reports).

 

I merely used hyperbolic language to match the usage of the NRA's equally absurd logic.

[Slojo]

So I should give up my best chance at equalizing force in an assault situation because someone else is afraid of my firearm? No thanks.

 

Civilians trying to protect themselves and one another aren't the ones causing these statistics - why are so many posters on here bent on creating straw men and ignoring that the problem isn't a mom with her handgun?

 

Why can't the focus just be on terrorists and criminals and not everyone else and their desire to protect themselves? This is bs and I'm sick of it. Every time there is a shooting the finger gets pointed at the NRA or normal people who had jack to do with illegally obtained or discharged firearms. We aren't the enemies, and directing disgust, sadness, or even legal efforts at us doesn't solve the problem.

 

At no point has anyone ever said that, so you can drop the concern. I just want you to go through the strictest of protocols for the privilege. You may not be the enemy, but the NRA has blocked several of even the most modest of reforms. As for focusing on the terrorists and criminals -- seems to me like really strict laws and procotols WOULD allow folks to better focus on the terrorists and criminals, because the LEGAL folks would all be registered, etc...

 

Why did you make this about race?

If these people were jihadists then it's got nothing to do with race; it's about IDEOLOGY. And anybody can subscribe to that ideology, whether they are white, brown, black, blue, purple or green.

Honestly, until people wake up and realize that these extremists WANT to kill us, we'll all be at their mercy.

 

When the U.S. is called "The Big Satan" and Israel is called "The Little Satan", it's pretty clear what their end-game is. And this isn't limited to one country or another. When these espoused views are internalized by ANYONE of ANY RACE, the result is deep hatred and a twisted belief that they are doing a great and heroic deed when they murder innocent people.

 

And you say this rampage wasn't any different than any other. You're right in the sense that the taking of life is the taking of life, regardless of motive. However, there's a difference in the impetus behind a disturbed lone individual like the guy in S.C. who killed all those people in the church, versus a growing ideology espoused by regimes and "spiritual" leaders. The end result may be similar in terms of the fact that innocent people have been killed, but the power behind the movement is growing and we better open our eyes.

 

Now, of course we haven't yet been told by police what the motive was. They're being decidedly cautious about releasing details. But based on what I've read so far, I would be surprised if it wasn't Islamic terrorism.

 

I'm not sure that this poster made it about race, but let's be honest, the media seems to have a consistent problem identifying white males as having an ideology. They seem to always be "quiet loners" with "a history of mental problems" but not thugs or terrorists. That seems to be reserved for people with brown skin. Several commentaries have been put out about this double standard.  Even you fail to see the SC terrorist has having an ideology that has been linked to white supremacist groups that have terrorized my community for decades. That's terrorism, NOT a disturbed lone individual "like that poor, misguided young man in SC."  Give me a break!

 

A 5AM rambling...

 

Why don't we have training courses so those that choose to carry will be trained on what to do in a shooting. I'm an excellent shot, and willing to risk my life in such a situation, but that doesn't mean I'd make the right decision in a heated moment. How would criminals feel if they were surrounded by trained, armed protectors that they couldn't identify.

 

You think you're an excellent shot - and maybe you are. Not sure how I'd know that in an active shooter situation, and how I'd know to trust you in such a chaotic situation. Also, I'd want you to be trained with the frequency that they train the special ops units, and to be wearing something "official" looking, or else, I'm going to view you as part of the active shooters -- and I may inadvertently "take my one chance"to disable or distract you instead of the real threats.  

[Joanne]

When there is an intent to murder, a way will be found.

 

You can't kill 14 in a few minutes with a knife.

[Slache]

You think you're an excellent shot - and maybe you are. Not sure how I'd know that in an active shooter situation, and how I'd know to trust you in such a chaotic situation. Also, I'd want you to be trained with the frequency that they train the special ops units, and to be wearing something "official" looking, or else, I'm going to view you as part of the active shooters -- and I may inadvertently "take my one chance"to disable or distract you instead of the real threats.

And that could be a part of it. Regular training and a way to identify themselves in the moment, but don't take a few difficulties and say it's a valid excuse not to have trained gunmen at a public shooting.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Slache

[unsinkable]

I just read a report that said the shooters were wearing cameras and that it wasn't known if they'd had time to download the footage. I do not for one second believe this was a "workplace shooting."

In a typical workplace shooting, it would be more likely that she was his ex-wife, and he would have murdered her at the start of the rampage.

[Slojo]

And that could be a part of it. Regular training and a way to identify themselves in the moment, but don't take a few difficulties and say it's a valid excuse not to have trained gunmen at a public shooting.

That goes both ways - don't take a few difficulties and say it's a valid excuse not to have stricter gun laws. That's the far greater political hurdle in our country. Glad you're willing to sign up for that -- now it's time to convince your fellow pro gun enthusiasts. 

[Slache]

You can't kill 14 in a few minutes with a knife.

I could.

[Joanne]

Most shootings happen in gun free zones.

 

Let's be very, very careful with how we process and interpret this information. "Gun free zones" are also where many people gather in mass - making the setting a target. Let's not attribute "gun free" inappropriately.

[Slache]

That goes both ways - don't take a few difficulties and say it's a valid excuse not to have stricter gun laws. That's the far greater political hurdle in our country. Glad you're willing to sign up for that -- now it's time to convince your fellow pro gun enthusiasts.

I never said I disagree with stricter gun laws. I said don't take my guns.

[Slache]

Let's be very, very careful with how we process and interpret this information. "Gun free zones" are also where many people gather in mass - making the setting a target. Let's not attribute "gun free" inappropriately.

The argument was that people having guns should make us safer but doesn't. My argument was that in most of those cases people weren't allowed to have guns.

[mamiof5]

My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and everyone affected by this tragedy. It really saddens me to see how much disrespect is there for human life at any stage. From babies in the mothers' wombs, kindergarteners, elementary, college kids, Holiday parties etc... whatever the situation is, it comes down to the point of someone thinking it's OK to take away somebody else's life. I know many blame guns, but does the weapon used really matter? An abortion tool, a knife, a baseball bat, a gun, a piece of glass, running someone over with a vehicle to kill them... does it really matter what was used? The fact that anyone will deliberately end a human life in purpose just saddens me. I used to be sympathetic of the shooter, since I can't understand the reasoning behind all this, I always want to think there's some sort of mental disability that makes the person act the way they do. But, can we always blame it on mental issues? Terrorism, violence, abortion, whatever the case is...sadly we can't always blame mental problems, some of it is just pure evil. And we can't always blame guns either. It's not the gun that is killing someone, it's the intention and will of the shooter. Oh, and I'm not a gun lover...couldn't care less about owning one...it just bothers me when quickly the tool used is blamed? Not sure getting rid of guns would stop this madness :(

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'm not looking up the stats, but I could venture to guess that the total populations of all of those nations put together would probably not equal that of the U.S. More people, more confilct. Also, the U.S. has many different kiinds of people vs some of those listed, and that leads to even more conflict.

 

We also have a Bill of Rights. We fought England for our freedom, and many are not willing to lose even one of those hard-won rights.

Per capita our rates are much, much higher. And considering most violence in the U.S. Is within groups (blacks generally kill blacks, whites generally kill whites, etc) the different kinds of people = conflict doesn't explain the difference.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The argument was that people having guns should make us safer but doesn't. My argument was that in most of those cases people weren't allowed to have guns.

Even without mass shootings the rate of gun deaths in the U.S. dwarfs that of other nations. The vast majority of the other gun deaths do not occur in the "gun free zones" you keep mentioning, so what is your explanation for those deaths?

[Guest]

I could.

What a bizarre statement.

[redsquirrel]

Most shootings happen in gun free zones.

 

 

 

Most shooting happen in private homes in this country.  Even 2/3s of 'mass shootings", meaning 4 or more people died, happen in private homes. 

 

You are much, much more likely to be shot by someone you know very well than by a stranger.  Domestic violence accounts for a great number of the shootings that leave 4 or more people dead.

[Reefgazer]

No, because most people are not armed and the criminals know the odds are with them that their intended victim is unarmed.  Also, there are so many "gun-free" zones (colleges and schools, government buildings) that many stranger-generated mass shootings happen in areas where people are not allowed to defend themselves.

I ask this sincerely, if this is true, wouldn't the US already be the safest country in the world? 

 

Edited December 3, 2015 by reefgazer

[Pam in CT]

Stepping around the political dung-bombs in this thread...

 

 

I am truly shaken by this shooting more than I have been with others.  This took place at a center for people with developmental disabilities.  My son is developmentally disabled.  As such, we frequently visit the local ARC.  It has always been the ONE PLACE in this huge, unwelcoming world where he fits in.  It's his people, his flock.  It's the one place where he is SAFE from the constant onslaught of the world's message of him not being good enough for this world.  It's his safe haven.

 

Except it's not.  As this shooting has indicated, even a center for the intellectually disabled is not safe.  And if it's not safe for these people, then where is?

 

Not "liking," because, but... yeah.   :grouphug:

 

 

Sandy Hook got under my skin in a somewhat-similar way.

[Guest]

The argument was that people having guns should make us safer but doesn't. My argument was that in most of those cases people weren't allowed to have guns.

Everyone I know who has a concealed carry permit "accidentally" doesn't see the gun free zone sign.

[Slache]

Even without mass shootings the rate of gun deaths in the U.S. dwarfs that of other nations. The vast majority of the other gun deaths do not occur in the "gun free zones" you keep mentioning, so what is your explanation for those deaths?

I don't have one. I don't have a solution.

[Pawz4me]

A 5AM rambling...

 

Why don't we have training courses so those that choose to carry will be trained on what to do in a shooting. I'm an excellent shot, and willing to risk my life in such a situation, but that doesn't mean I'd make the right decision in a heated moment. How would criminals feel if they were surrounded by trained, armed protectors that they couldn't identify.

 

 

Did you read the article and study I linked to in post #31?

 

Do you believe that even with the level of training the NYC police department receives you'd be able to perform at least as well as they do in an active shooting situation (which to my way of thinking isn't an acceptably good level at all)?  How would we manage to train enough people to that level to make a difference?  What would the ongoing training look like?  How would we afford it?  Do we even have enough skilled instructors and training facilities?

 

I'm not asking that to be contentious.  I really want to understand why an average citizen would logically continue to hold on to the notion that they would be able to act at all, let alone shoot accurately, in a stressful, life or death situation when the statistics say otherwise.

[Slache]

What a bizarre statement.

I was just saying that just because someone doesn't have a gun doesn't mean they can't kill people.

[SKL]

If we got rid of all the guns, we'd still have to address the reason why certain people and groups in this country are violent, and what to do about it.  So let's not get distracted from that.