MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > I’ve never understood mass shootings

I’ve never understood mass shootings


If you were pissed off at the world why would you kill random innocent people? Why not the pieces of shit who did you wrong? Makes no sense at all.

reply

They are mad at the world, random people are a part of that world.

reply

You wouldn't do anything like that, would you?

reply

LOL!

reply

No, I am just trying to understand.

reply

Ha! Nice one. Made me laugh.

reply

Genocide, serial murder and rape make no damned sense either...some people just need to be locked the hell up forever

It's a wonderful world except for all of the nutcases

reply

I agree

reply

What I don't understand is people who want guns banned. Stay with me a second, is it the guns or some need to kill that causes this? Because if it is a need to commit mass murder they will just move on to another suitable weapon, a vehicle, bomb, gas etc.

Instead of looking at the weapon society needs to look at what makes people do this in the first place.

reply

Holy shit! Someone on the interweb makes sense!

reply

The biggest thing we need to do is teach to others "if you hear something say something" because a ridiculously high percentage of these shooters tell one or more people they are going to do it beforehand.

All these people talking about background checks don't know what they are talking about, every gun I have bought there was some kind of background check attached to it whether be through my conceal carry permit or my pistol purchase permit.

reply

I live in Australia, the country that gets lauded for it's "tough gun laws" I agree with what you are saying about background checks. We had a siege a few years back and the assailant was well known to authorities and they were even warned to not let him in the country to begin with.

Our authorities down here let us down time after time.

Since the crackdowns in the late 90's we have had drive by shootings which were virtually unheard of beforehand as well. If someone wants a firearm they will get one. Our politically correct police are useless as well. I envy American laws to be honest.

reply

"I envy American laws to be honest. "

Thank you for saying that. It saddens me that so many Americans are shitting on their own country lately. The majority of gun owners are responsible and law abiding, yet are being punished for the actions of a few. Many people wonder why we can't have a gun control model like Australia, but don't seem to understand we are very different countries. Besides it being a Constitutional Right here, I think your Ambassador to the US hit the nail on the had with this comment:

"Australia and the United States are completely different situations, and it goes back to each of our foundings. America was born from a culture of self-defense. Australia was born from a culture of "the government will protect me." Australia wasn't born as a result of a brutal war. We weren't invaded. We weren't attacked. We weren't occupied. That makes an incredible difference, even today."

Also, I hear your neighbors in New Zealand aren't happy either. Apparently, many gun owners feel betrayed by their Government. One psycho goes on a rampage and now peaceful gun owners have a choice to turn in personal property or become a criminal. I do however applaud my Kiwi friends for not complying. Last I checked, less than 10% of people have turned in their firearms.

reply

New Zealand is like Canada at the moment. They love the Left wing disease. After the attack on that mosque their Feminist Prime Minister turned up to mourn with a head covering. I never understand things like that, why would that be considered necessary?

Going off track here a little but still related, after the siege I mentioned that was in Sydney, there was a "I'll ride with you campaign" to support Muslims who somehow felt threatened. Ummmm it was a Muslim who started the siege and his victims were non Muslims!

There is some real stupidity at work here.

Recently in Australia we had the conservative Govt. win the election even though the media promoted it as unloseable for the Left. It mirrored what happened in the USA with Hilarity. Just like in the USA our idiot celebrities then went on a Twitter tirade abusing and insulting the people for not voting the way they would have liked.

In short I think NZ will go the same way next election, people are seeing through the thin veneer of PC nuttery and want common sense again. I read a while ago that often the places where Left wing parties do the worst is where Left wing parties have governed or had power previously. It says a lot really.

reply

well, under 'conservative' US administrations in the past couple of decades we've gotten bogged down in 2 big wars of occupation, one under fraudulent circumstances, the speculators let run wild and laissez-faire policy succeeded in melting down the world economy - so you'd really really have to work hard to convince me that 'conservatives' trod the road of reason, broad prosperity. it looks like fraud, death & looting to me.

as for gun policy, review the relative figures betwixt Australia, Kiwis & Yanks & then tell me, if you care to, what in the world is appealing about America's position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

reply

I have a feeling that even if you were to remove every gun in America that mass killings would still occur. They would just use something else. As I mentioned, there is something deeper going on with why these killings occur. Yes, some are obviously politically motivated but then you have many that are nothing more than someone or a group of people going over the deep end.

reply

i don't believe these two aspects, gun proliferation and perhaps some malaise in the american cultural/sociopolitical psyche, are mutually exclusive.

in fact, i expect they are both very significant drivers of gun violence. its just that gun control is a direct address to the problem (as, for example, assault weapon bans, large magazine bans), while the other might be far more diffuse of a challenge.

now, we can perhaps imagine that nothing we could do would have any effect. but that would be irrational.

reply

I'm not on the extreme end of either side of the discussion. I don't understand why someone needs to have a military assault weapon for example or why you wouldn't want background checks prior to allowing someone to be able to purchase a firearm.

As mentioned though, I am Australian and I have seen how the stricter gun laws haven't really made the difference that keeps getting mentioned. Australian society has become more violent over the past 20 or so years. It is starting to mirror American society. It isn't guns that has made Australian society more aggressive it is something else, a number of factors.

Anyway, my point is that the problem is deeper than guns. From your post I think you agree with me on that.

reply

yes i do. but what i appreciate perhaps more than you the vast difference in gun prevalence here in the states, and if you will review the stats in the wiki link, the vast difference in per capita gun violence between australia & the states.

as you say, and it must be so, guns aren't the only thing, by any means. i'm just saying, from the perspective of an american, that restricting civilian ownership of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, is a clearly indicated reform.

now eschewing such reforms is the language of the rightists here, in thrall to the gun lobby. they dont CARE about the mayhem we are now seeing, or at any rate dont care enough to do a damn thing about it.

when it comes to guns, american is insane. we need to get less insane, or more sane, as you like. the deeper malaise may come from our squalid materialism, our inhumane distribution of wealth, our inhuman system of incarceration. but those are large, massive targets. too big to be tackled with any focus, any real consensus. and so.... we reckon with what we can handle.

reply

"now eschewing such reforms is the language of the rightists here, in thrall to the gun lobby. they dont CARE about the mayhem we are now seeing, or at any rate dont care enough to do a damn thing about it."

Just about everything is political now and yes, I am going to place a huge amount of the blame onto the Left. They bring politics into everything.

I think you will find that the Left simply aren't taken seriously and cannot be trusted by anyone who is not of the Left. That is why there is probably an immediate refusal or push back when they suggest anything. I have seen the Left attack conservatives just because they are conservative as well, even if that conservative is suggesting or doing something the Left actually support in theory anyway. They just don't like the side.

In terms of the inhuman incarceration you mention we won't agree on that. In Australia criminals are left off easily. We have people bashing cops as well as Ambulance officers, being committing murders and getting away with very light sentences. It is a joke, I wish we had your system over here. I am also a 100% supporter of the death penalty.

But again the Left make it all about politics and our idiot Leftists seem to be ok with a weak legal system. It's all about breaking society.

reply

"Just about everything is political now and yes, I am going to place a huge amount of the blame onto the Left. They bring politics into everything.

I think you will find that the Left simply aren't taken seriously and cannot be trusted by anyone who is not of the Left. That is why there is probably an immediate refusal or push back when they suggest anything. I have seen the Left attack conservatives just because they are conservative as well, even if that conservative is suggesting or doing something the Left actually support in theory anyway. They just don't like the side."

Every single point you listed the Right are every bit as guilty of or could be said of them. Politics brings out the worst in people, which is why I dislike and do my best to stay far away from the topic.

reply

That is not true, what you just said.

reply

I agree with what you said. I'd also add we need more soul nutrition. Great music, movies, and comedy.

reply

if good art is the cure, we're in the middle of a plague.

reply

Hmm? You seem to forget one of the deadliest non-wars (police action) where we left blood, limbs and bodies due to a damn lie by LBJ a hard core liberal Democrat! Does Vietnam ring a bell? Go back farther: Korea under a Democrat!

reply

have a nice day.

reply

You also! ☺️

reply

cool. just so you know, i don't defend every awful thing every democrat has ever done. history is so much more complex than a partisan read-out of simply one party's disasters.

having said that, i will also say that the recent string of republican disasters & frauds turned me away from that party forever, after decades of decreasingly enthusiastic support.

regarding VN, the american foreign policy establishment at that time was effectively bipartisan. LBJ was both corruptly in thrall to Brown & Root & the ecosystem of military contractors and intimidated by the supposed expertise of his generals (far more so than JFK, who was far more independently-minded, far more confident in his own analyses than those of generals who brought the nation to the brink of genocide over the island of Cuba, for god's sake)

LBJ's CIA also sponsored mass killings in Indonesia (all in the name of stomping out socialism).

hanging VN on either party doesnt really work. the proof of that was that half the US casualties in VN occurred under Nixon, after LBJ was gone, replaced by a candidate who had a 'secret plan' to end the war, and who sabotaged the Paris Peace Talks in 68 to ensure his own election.

lots of blood on both parties' hands. the invasion of Cambodia added to the carnage.

LBJ's saving grace was his tremendous personal leadership & political sacrifice in securing civil rights for African Americans, ultimately minorities in general.

Nixon doesnt have one.

reply

If you have a chance to catch the series Vietnam which was aired earlier this year please do so. I became so furious at our government over the lies. I lived that time and admit we were quite ignorant about what was really going on. LBJ escalated the war with his lie about the Gulf of Tonkin. Maybe so about the casualties under Nixon, but LBJ was the one to put “boots on the ground”!

Nixon (“I’m not a crook!”) went to China! :-)

reply

LBJ a hardcore liberal Democrat?

reply

Oh my, yes....most certainly! Medicare is a boondoggle. The War on Poverty solved nothing!

reply

I envy American laws to be honest


Yes. On a related matter, there were 37,200 gun related deaths in the US in 2016, and 238 in Australia.

I envy their death rates too.

reply

Why not allow civilians to own a tank or a rocket launcher? The guy in Dayton was able to get off 40 rounds in 30 seconds and killed nine people even though the cops were there within minutes.

reply

You can own both of those things with the proper permits, but you better have deep pockets. Obviously not practical for the average joe.

reply

I would love to own a tank.

reply

I also want a tank but let's be honest froggyandtoadie, shit would get real as soon as we pulled out of the driveway so maybe it's best we stick to cars

reply

😂Well, if we’re being completely honest, they never should’ve gave me a car.

reply

Something tells me you'd be hell on wheels on a bicycle...

I sure hope I don't owe you 2 dollars😳!

reply

🤣🤣I WANT MY $2!!!

reply

I wasn't sure if you'd get that..it was a bit random
Nicely done

reply

I want the tumbler version of the Batmobile.

reply

uber-tank to go to the store

reply

Clear the way soccer moms!

reply

using a horse-and-carriage to go to work!

reply

You don't need a tank. We had an idiot run his car through a major city street a couple of years back down here killed a number of people. By the way he was a released psych patient who never should have been released but weak Liberal politics strikes again, he has rights! The cops weren't allowed to intervene by their higher ups. A truck ran through a crowd in Paris and similar incidents elsewhere.

A rocket launcher? I don't think it takes much skill or knowledge to make a Molotov cocktail.

reply

you can kill someone with a rock, guns make killing people easier.

reply

It does but if someone is determined to do it and I believe that the people who have committed mass shootings are determined they would just use something else. A bomb actually would be even easier than a gun and you wouldn't even have to stick around.

reply

Because any Joe Blow can walk into a store and buy a high-powered gun and kill multiple people in seconds. Making a bomb requires a degree of sophistication and intelligence, is a much more rare occurrence and it´s also less efficient at killing people (pipe bombs not OKC level bomb). There are preventative measures for vehicle attacks, more and more barriers are being created in highly populated areas for pedestrians. When was the last time you heard of a gas attack without looking it up?

People will always kill people and even if we understand why we will never be able to stop them but at least with regards to spree killers, taking away the option or making it harder for them to obtain a high powered weapon I think is reasonable.

reply

It still doesn't answer my question which is "what is it about America that causes this to happen?" you can say some of these shootings are political but a lot of them aren't.

reply

Combination of many factors imo. Narcissism for one. How their society and media places a big emphasis on fame and fortune. A lot of the perpetrators are young kids who apart from wanting revenge on people that bullied them, also realise that they will get media attention for committing a mass shooting. The ease with which one can obtain a firearm is also part of the problem imo. People with mental problems, should have absolutely no way of obtaining a gun but it has happened repeatedly and with dire consequences. Its written into their constitution, which is obviously outdated and with the improvement of technology is a bigger issue/problem 100´s of years later.

reply

I'm thinking the amount of prescribed drugs people/kids are on over there plays a part as well. Guns are their weapons of choice but as previously mentioned I think if you took guns away they would use something else.

reply

as far as using something else, i would prefer they use an axe or a hammer or a screw-driver or a musket or a revolver than assault-rifles w/ bumper stocks and 100 round barrel loaders.

if you catch my drift.

reply

I do agree about assault rifles/military weapons being banned don't get me wrong but the ones who want to ban gun ownership want every type of gun banned and for everyone.

reply

very few people are that extreme. but characterizing the majority of Americans who want assault weapon bans as absolutist gun grabbers is the go-to propaganda of the NRA crowd.

do you perhaps not know that ? its largely a propaganda campaign. the NRA controls the GOP and a good number of Dems. any device to thwart reform OF ANY SORT is their game plan.

i have a 9mm myself, by the way.

reply

I'm not American so save your patronizing tone. From what I have seen and heard it seems the Anti Gun groups are anti all guns. If that isn't the case then perhaps they need to communicate better instead of just ranting.

reply

Not true about anti-gun people. There used to be a ban on assault weapons like AK-15s. A couple of years ago, they didn't renew the law so those weapons became legal and that's when mass shootings began to skyrocket. The ban needs to be restored.

Background checks and gun sales from licensed dealers. Common sense laws like everyone else in the world.

reply

actually, you are the one ranting. i wasn't being patronizing. an assault-gun ban isnt a total ban, and I will tell you that ALMOST NO ONE here in the states would advocate such. why? it isn't reasonable, it isn't realistic. it isn't constitutional.

why you believe in or are repeating such a lie is a question only you can answer. maybe get better informed. i say this only because you are clearly misinformed.

reply

Or maybe I just ignore the arrogant like yourself. Go be angry at some other stranger on the internet. I can't be bothered with you.

reply

what would be arrogant would be if I was trying to tell an aussie the lay of the land in his/her own country.

what would be arrogant would be accusing a yank who tried to set me straight on matters in his own country arrogant for doing so.

what i'm saying about the disinformation campaign is completely non-controversial (unless you are a wingnut, which I do NOT consider you to be), completely demonstrable :

"This ostensible need to possess a firearm for self-preservation is connected to another existential crisis the NRA has constructed: The NRA has consistently undercut advocates for gun violence prevention and common-sense legislation in order to maintain power over the narrative. To achieve this goal, the NRA has turned its political opposition into an anti-American enemy poised to seize guns and suppress freedoms through its anti-gun agenda. Wayne LaPierre verbalized this message at the 2018 NRA annual convention, stating, “The leadership of the National Democratic Party is the most anti-Second Amendment bunch of socialists in United States’ history. They’ll aim to seize your firearms, destroy your NRA, and entirely obliterate our great Second Amendment.”53

By routinely associating gun violence prevention advocacy with disarmament—even going so far as to label Democratic members of Congress “disarmocrats”54 and the 2020 Democratic presidential primary the “disarmament primary”55—the NRA has insidiously developed an “us vs. them” dynamic, pitting the NRA’s constructed gun-owning American patriot against those who want to pass common-sense reforms. The NRA depicts the conflict of ideas as an existential battle between the two groups in an NRA-constructed zero-sum game,"
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/guns-crime/reports/2019/04/24/468951/guns-lies-fear/

reply

The following are your candidates views regarding the confiscation of our firearms. The 2nd Amendment be damned! How many times do I have to say the AR-15 is *not* an assault weapon? These idiots constantly decry semi-automatic firearms as assault weapons! Selling a true assault/military weapon IS illegal!

https://www.thetrace.org/2019/06/democratic-candidates-2020-gun-policy/

https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/28/here-are-the-gun-control-positions-of-the-democratic-candidates-after-two-debates/

reply

are any of them calling for rescinding the 2d amendment, confiscating all guns ?

if not, what is your point?

you don't like an ar-15/ak-47/assault weapon ban, we do, and we say so. sounds like an honest disagreement, or it would be if that dispute wasn't constantly distorted into something otherwise by the NRA crowd.

'conservatives', these days at least, think they have some privilege to lie about the views of those with whom they disagree. it's pretty disgusting.

you want to keep your ar-15, we dont. let's have some elections, and vote on it.

reply

An AR-15 is NOT an assault weapon anymore than a Glock 40, a .380 or any other SEMI-AUTOMATIC! An AK-47 has to be a semi-automatic in order to be legal. Just because a weapon looks like an assault weapon, aka AR-15 doesn’t make it so.

For sure they aren’t admitting to ratifying or rescinding the 2nd Amendment....that would definitely show them to be the idiots they are. You need to carefully read what each one is saying, especially O’Rourke.

“Democrat presidential candidate Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke pointed to the May 18, 2018, Santa Fe High School shooting as justification for an “assault weapons” ban.

*The Santa Fe High School shooting was carried out with a shotgun and a revolver.*

During the June 26, 2019, Democrat presidential debate, O’Rourke talked of his exchanges with students who were in the Santa Fe shooting and said, “They talked about universal background checks, … we know that they saved lives, and they talked about ending the sale of ‘assault weapons’ into our communities.”

The gunman in the Santa Fe shooting was 17-years-old, which means he was too young to buy a gun. Therefore, universal background checks would have had no impact.
Secondly, he used a shotgun and a revolver, which means an “assault weapons” ban would have had no impact.

The Santa Fe attacker used firearms that belonged to someone else. This means no gun control would have prevented the attack he carried out.

O’Rourke’s statement that universal background checks save lives also deserves scrutiny because nearly every mass shooter of the last decade passed a background check for his guns. The exceptions are those who stole their guns.“





reply

An AR-15 is NOT an assault weapon anymore than a Glock 40, a .380 or any other SEMI-AUTOMATIC! An AK-47 has to be a semi-automatic in order to be legal. Just because a weapon looks like an assault weapon, aka AR-15 doesn’t make it so.

For sure they aren’t admitting to ratifying or rescinding the 2 Amendment....that would definitely show them to be the idiots they are. You need to carefully read what each one is saying, especially O’Rourke.

“Democrat presidential candidate Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke pointed to the May 18, 2018, Santa Fe High School shooting as justification for an “assault weapons” ban.

*The Santa Fe High School shooting was carried out with a shotgun and a revolver.*

During the June 26, 2019, Democrat presidential debate, O’Rourke talked of his exchanges with students who were in the Santa Fe shooting and said, “They talked about universal background checks, … we know that they saved lives, and they talked about ending the sale of ‘assault weapons’ into our communities.”

The gunman in the Santa Fe shooting was 17-years-old, which means he was too young to buy a gun. Therefore, universal background checks would have had no impact.
Secondly, he used a shotgun and a revolver, which means an “assault weapons” ban would have had no impact.

The Santa Fe attacker used firearms that belonged to someone else. This means no gun control would have prevented the attack he carried out.

O’Rourke’s statement that universal background checks save lives also deserves scrutiny because nearly every mass shooter of the last decade passed a background check for his guns. The exceptions are those who stole their guns.“

that post should be bronzed.

reply

Thank you! 😌 Would you mind giving your thoughts?

reply

sure but i don't know what else i could say that you haven't already said, and very well by the way, in your excellent post!

basically, i am very libertarian minded, and common sensical about it all. but trying to convince some of these anti-gun folks is a waste of breath, imo. because we are using logic to convince an emotional person of something, which means we just don't speak their language. and never will, i'm afraid.

it's nice to see someone here who sees it like i do

:)

reply

💁‍♀️Gotcha! I cannot for the life of me get the anti-gun/partial anti-gun folks to use reason. When the instrument of murder is a firearm they blame the firearm. When the instrument of murder is a truck/car they blame the driver and rightly so.

241 service members including 240 Marines were massacred in Beirut in 1983. The instrument of murder was a truck bomb. Who or what was blamed? It wasn’t the truck bomb....it was the terrorist driving the truck!

April, 1995 Timothy McVeigh drove a truck bomb which murdered 168 souls and left scores injured. If there was anything left of the truck, it wasn’t executed....the driver Timothy McVeigh was executed!

9/11...terrorists used planes as the murder weapons to murder over 3000 people. The planes didn’t fly themselves....so the planes weren’t blamed....the sub humans who flew the planes were blamed.

Common sense leads to the fact inanimate objects cannot murder unless there is human(s) involvement.




reply

“Because any Joe Blow can walk into a store and buy a high-powered gun...”

Not so. Wait times can vary from 3 to 5 days or longer. We have a *right* to own high powered weapons. I have several left to me by my deceased father who was a hunter. I don’t hunt so I have to assume there are times when a hunter needs that dastardly “high-powered gun”. Maybe when being charged by a grizzly? I don’t know. 🤷‍♀️

BTW, I’m tired of hearing “We have to ban assault weapons!” What are anti-gun folks talking about? True military style assault weapons are illegal. An AR-15 is *not* an assault weapon. The AK-47 legally sold in the US is *not* an assault weapon. It is a semi-automatic which is not an assault rifle.

reply

Semantics.

Semi-automatic firearms were classified as assault weapons under the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act aka the Federal Assault Weapons Ban aka the Semi-Automatic Firearms Ban.

reply

Yeah, lets ban 'em. I can't wait to see the crazy, long lines of all the criminals wanting to hand theirs in!!

reply

The majority of criminal use handguns.

The majority of mass shooters use Semi-Automatic Firearms. Why are you against measures that would help prevent the mentally ill and bigots from effectively killing many people quickly with Semi-Automatic Firearms?

reply

The majority of criminal use handguns.

The majority of mass shooters use Semi-Automatic Firearms. Why are you against measures that would help prevent the mentally ill and bigots from effectively killing many people quickly with Semi-Automatic Firearms?

see, you don't even realize you just put your own ingorance ON DISPLAY here.

the vast majority of all handguns ARE SEMI-AUTO

but you spoke of handguns and 'semi-autos' as if they are two different things.

see there buddy, you don't even know what you are talking about.


semi-auto does not = assault weapon.

dude, a knife and fork could be utilized as an assault weapon in the rigth hands.

the left's ignorange astounds.

S M M F H



reply

You're still playing semantics.

There is no reason for citizens to have military-style weapons.

reply

No... No... You do not off that easy.

I am not playing semantics i was just corrwcting your grossly misinformed assertion that any semi auto is classified as an assault weapon.

That is not true.

reply

"Semi-automatic firearms were classified as assault weapons under the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act aka the Federal Assault Weapons Ban aka the Semi-Automatic Firearms Ban."

They weren't classified by me. Take it up with the legislatures.

reply

Oh right. The legislatures that ban drinking straws and happy meals. lmao

I don't have to take it up with the legislatures, because I really don't give a damn what they say. lmao

But also, who gave them the right to coin definitions in the first place? You libs see legislatures as 'Almighty God 2.0" lmao

Cheers.

reply

Correction, any Joe Blow can walk into a store and buy a high-powered gun and wait 3-5 days to receive it. Better?

reply

If the background check comes back clean. So yes, s/he has every right to purchase a high-power firearm.

reply

Doesn´t matter anyway, 80% of firearms used for criminal activity are bought from unlicensed sellers meaning no background checks. In addition, background checks determine if a person has ever been a criminal, it doesn´t prevent someone with mental health issues who has never been a convicted felon from purchasing a weapon.

reply

OK, so what do you propose? All I see from your replies are what’s wrong. I see no solutions.

reply

check for crazy, in addition to criminal?

reply

Just how would you do that? We have HIPPA laws in this country.

reply

I don´t have all the answers, Im not an American citizen but I think my suggestion would be anything to do with weapons should be regulated at a federal level because differences in state laws makes gun control on a state by state basis less effective. Since anyone can bypass stricter state or local laws by buying interstate. Tougher penalties on private unlicensed sellers could be another option. Absolutely think people with mental health issues should not be able to purchase weapons, how this is enforceable, I have no idea.

reply

I repeat we have HIPPA laws in the US. So checking for mental issues is a non-starter. Most firearms cannot be regulated by the federal government....we have a 2nd Amendment:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

I purchased a privately owned handgun from an online gun web site. To make it legal I had him ship it from a gun store to our local gun store.

BTW, in most mass shootings, the gun laws wouldn’t deter the shooter....doesn’t matter how many gun laws we have, they wouldn’t be effective.

An absolute gun control law would never pass as the Constitution would have to be changed. Our Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of gun owners.

reply

Part of the problem is that the Constitution is out of date. A militia is not needed now and weapons from that era couldn´t kill 10´s of people in seconds like they can now. HIPPA laws are problematic too, especially if you cant prevent crazies from obtaining guns.

reply

The Constitution is the supreme law of our land, the US. It is not out of date, but there have been some atrocious decisions through the years. One being the court upholding Jim Crow laws in 1896. Another the right to abortion. How in the hell did the court find that bit in the right to privacy?

We still have a militia....the National Guard which is most definitely needed. The second clause of the 2nd Amendment pertains to we the people. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Why do you think we fought and won against the British? Doesn’t get any clearer. We have a right to defend ourselves, our families, our homes (the Castle Doctrine) and our property.

BTW, you need to cease believing the weapon fires by itself. It takes a finger to pull the trigger. What are you going to do about the truck which plows through a crowd of people? If I remember correctly more were murdered by that instrument of death than has occurred using firearms. Did you blame the truck? I would wager you blamed the hands on the steering wheel which of course are attached to another evildoer. Hells Bells over 900 were massacred drinking Kool-Aid!

You cannot believe by taking firearms from those of us who are responsible will solve the problem of the evil mind. They will find a way to accomplish their evil deed.

reply

Ben Shapiro was on last week and he was readiing stats (though I don't have them in front of me) and he shared that it's in the government's statistics that more Americans are killed each year with hammers than with rifles.

Proven statistical fact.

If I can find the stat/source I will return and post it. but it will not convince billyslater anyway....

cheers.

reply

Thanks for the info. I will search also.☺️

reply

Actually, according to what Puerto Rico Police showed me at a terrorist demonstration a few years ago it is fairly easy to make bombs with lightbulbs! I will not explain the procedure so copycats do not make them.

reply

You know what they call "gun-free" zones in the killer's mind? A target-rich environment.

reply

No they don´t. That´s just some myth perpetuated by NRA and pro-gun lobbyists. The last thing on a spree shooter´s mind is the presence of guns in the target area, since most if not all intend on dying anyway.

reply

Bull shit. That is exactly how they pick their targets. Maybe go back and take another look?

reply

What I don't understand is people who want guns banned. Stay with me a second, is it the guns or some need to kill that causes this? Because if it is a need to commit mass murder they will just move on to another suitable weapon, a vehicle, bomb, gas etc.

Instead of looking at the weapon society needs to look at what makes people do this in the first place.

exactly!! exactly!!!!!

reply

The world is incomprehensible by design. If you don't understand the world to begin with how do you go about setting it right ? This is one of the principle mechanisms by which the world is ruled.

reply

each one has doubtless unique aspects, but there must be in these people, as a generality, some tearing of the concepts of self and other (selves). some notion that only I exist, that only I am important, and I am very, very, very angry.

there's my 2cent take. also, the power of mimicry, the allure of fame, even infamy - for those whose identity is in crisis.

it seems to be, in short, a problem of identity.

reply

Here’s something to think about and these are rough figures. I think around 1% of persons killed by firearms in the USA are killed by mass shooters. The majority of firearm deaths are from suicide and the majority of those take place in Alaska. The 2nd cause of firearm death is violence in big cities with the victims being young black males. Also remember the 1% or so number includes big city violence such as gang activity where multiple people are killed.

Let me say 1 or 2 percent is too many but I’m only illustrating that the firearms they are wanting to ban are not the ones being used in the majority of firearms deaths in the USA, not by a long shot.

It’s just something that I think should be discussed.

reply

we have a mass shooting problem, and a gun proliferation problem, which spikes the total number of gun deaths. i wouldnt be tempted to use one problem to minimize another.

compare our gun death totals to any other western european nation. you can't. we are off the charts.

compare our gun death mass shooting totals to any other western european nation. you can't. we are off the charts.

reply

Edited: i agree with what you’ve said and sorry if it seemed like I was making light of one thing over the other. We should look to the UK and Australia’s gun laws and their results.

reply

fair enough. sorry for imputing something which you didn't intend. as for why the mass shooting demands disproportionate attention, that's not so hard to understand - spectacle will always command attention.

also, the dramatic uptick in such horrific events, often enough involving children, commands our concern. we are horrified and also fascinated. what is driving all this mayhem ?

reply

Yep... it seems like it’s mental health and changing times because firearms have certainly been around in the USA for a long time but it seems like the uptick hit in the 90’s.

reply

i agree with this.

for the record:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

murder victims from 2017 by:

handguns 7032
rifles 403
shotguns 264

there were 23854 suicides by gun acccording to the cdc.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

mass shootings induce terror, but personally i don't think it's right to punish the majority of rifle owners for the actions of a handful of deranged people.

i think, if you're concerned about deaths & body-counts, the best thing would be to focus on those troubled people killing themselves. there's probably something you could really do to help that group, & that would save the most lives.

reply

By rights if we apply the rule that people who own guns must give them up because some people use them to kill then that should also apply to certain religions among other things and beliefs.

reply

agreed. if you follow that line of thinking, you'll fall over an endless series of cliffs.

you'll need to take peoples phones away because they text while driving or take their cars away because there are so many accidents or take everyone's alcohol away because so many people drink themselves to death.

reply

Its not about things that kill you. Its about things that can kill multiple people in seconds or 100´s of people in minutes. If people want to kill themselves its fine, its when they want to kill others in a short space of time that its a problem.

reply

i have two responses to that.
first: i don't think it's right to be quite so dismissive of suicide or accidents or alcoholics. those things often cause as much pain to the family of that person as a murder, so we should think of those people as well.

second: absolutely true that rifles can kill that many people in a short amount of time. but that's where i would point back to those stats. there are far fewer people killed in those kinds of incidents than those where handguns were used, and much fewer than suicides. this is one of the areas where i think people focus far too much on low-probability/high impact incidents to our own detriment.

we could save many more lives if we focused on the issues we could realistically prevent. many of those handgun deaths come from street violence. we all have heard about chicago problems. we could focus on suicide issues. i think there's a very good chance proper policy could reduce those deaths. there's many more of those kinds of deaths, & if you care about human misery & preventing suffering, then i think that's the best area to direct your energy.

mass deaths from rifle shootings are much less predictable, much more random, & i'm not sure there's any realistic public policy that would prevent those things from happening. if we let the terror those incidents cause to drive us to spend all our energy on that issue, we'll be focusing on fewer deaths, and in an area where we likely have less chance of success.

and we should also think of the millions & millions of people who own & use those rifles who don't hurt anyone, who use them for hunting or target practice or just to have for their own protection. i don't think it makes sense to take away something from those people in the name of doing something that we're not even sure would prevent these kinds of incidents from happening.

reply

When I say its fine, I mean its impossible to police. If someone wants to abuse themselves with alcohol or drugs or kill themselves, its pretty much impossible for anyone to prevent them from doing that. When it comes to gun control, we can at least make it harder for people. Im also of the opinion that high capacity, high rate of fire weapons are unnecessary for self-defense. Are there more important issues that happen more regularly and need to be dealt with? Sure. But this thread is about mass shootings. Also, don´t think that just because we don´t know the outcome, doesn´t mean we shouldn´t try to do something. If there is a chance, changes in gun laws could reduce mass shootings, isn´t it a chance worth taking? I´d rather less mass shootings than pissing off rifle owners tbh.

reply

On insurgency and terrorism:

Miserable people cause misery. In their world, the world is cruel. The victim (them) has become the perpetrator that must right the wrongs, in their irredeemable view.

While these insurgents have remembered to "never forget" for what they feel has been wrongfully done to them, they have not allowed themselves to move on from the past.

The beliefs that have driven them celebrate their wanton acts of destruction as a form of "heroism", that what they do is called for out of a final act of desperation for what they feel is being lost in their perception of society.

The Atlantic (Reformed white nationalist perspective):
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/08/conversation-christian-picciolini/595543/

“Throughout our nervous history, we have constructed pyramidic towers of evil, ofttimes in the name of good.”
~ Maya Angelou

https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/08/19/maya-angelou-bill-moyers-facing-evil/

Check out THE WAVE (Die Welle; 2008) to get an idea of the dangers of ideological brainwashing.

German audio with English subtitles:
https://vimeo.com/256491212

~~/o/

reply

this doesnt account, though, for the random non-ideological shooter. the insurgents are, perhaps, easier to begin to understand. they have a coherent motive, even if radically disproportionate, indiscriminate, inappropriate, 'evil'.

we mix things up by collecting all mass shooters in a single bag.

reply

Indeed, that is very true. I concede your valid point.

While the shooters and shootings are not so clear-cut and easy to understand, it is possible given the notoriety and open exposure provided by the internet, they can be encouraged by instigators to commit awful, inhumane acts seeing how most of the them are seemingly mentally vulnerable to do such. That's no excuse for their actions or behavior though.

~~/o/

reply

yes, those must be some of the susceptibiliities of the more clearly psychotic/delusional and/or obsessive shooters, who don't have much in the way of an animating ideological principle.

the non-psychotic shooter interests me the most, because they are the most perhaps culturally or therapeutical impressionable, potentially the greatest threat, since they would tend to be more likely to escape detection.

reply

The person you're describing sounds a lot like the Las Vegas shooter.

A film example would be Jango Fett, the illustrious bounty hunter from Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones (2002).

He's a true sociopath whose emotional range is all over the place. On one end, caring for his "son", Boba, yet ruthless in his crime life dispatching beings with little hesitation, on the other.

~~/o/

reply

You never will and neither will the rest of us. Why? Because we can’t explain or understand evil! The Las Vegas mass murderer wasn’t aiming at “the pieces of s**t who did him wrong”. He became dark of soul and fired indiscriminately. When a mass shooting occurs the authorities rack their brains with “We’re looking for a motive.” They search, interview those who knew Satan personified, search again, etc., but in the end there are no answers. We can’t explain evil...we just know it when we see it. The scriptures say “The love of many will grow cold.”

Think about this, if a mass murderer uses a firearm, the firearm is to blame. If a mass murderer uses a truck...the driver is blamed. The worst thing retailers are doing is banning the use of open carry in their stores. Just put a huge target on the front door! Ripe pickings for the next evildoer! The ones who open carry are the ones we don’t have to worry about! Maybe, just maybe if one person had a weapon on him/her at the Walmart mass shooting there would be fewer dead.

I pray to God if I’m ever caught in such a situation He will give me strength, wisdom and not waiver in order to retrieve my 22 Mag with a laser from my handbag...in order to save someone’s life.

reply

Just don’t shoot another person reaching into their bag to do the same thing! In the chaos of a mass shooting, it will be difficult to sort the bad guy with a gun from the good guy with a gun. This happened at the recent food festival mass shooting where people described the shooter as “a guy in a uniform”. Turns out that guy was law enforcement, not the shooter. Imagine if a civilian had shot the cop who was aiming to shoot the killer? That is why I don’t support the ‘good guy with a gun’ argument. More guns, more chaos, more deaths.

reply

“More guns, more chaos, more deaths.” So, your solution is to just wait for the shooter to pick you off? Not attempt to save yourself or someone else. I believe that’s what occurred in a Paris cafe. He was picking them off....one by one...by one....

I disagree! One armed person could save lives. It wouldn’t be difficult to sort the murderer from the defender. Most people are ducking attempting to hide....the murderer isn’t. I recall the mass shooting in a cafeteria in Texas. A guy rammed his truck through the building, jumped out and started killing. People attempted to hide themselves under tables. One woman who had left her weapon in her glove box regrets not having it on her. She was trained and could have drawn his fire. If I recall she lost her parents...all were sitting ducks! Over 3000 people in a Walmart...if only one had had a weapon.

I wrote that I would pray to have the wisdom. Surely, common sense would let me or someone else recognize a shooter who was firing at anyone and everyone.

reply

No, I want a trained law enforcement doing the gun fights, not scared and confused amateurs praying to a higher being for guidance. I want background checks, gun registration, mandatory firearm training and licensing, ammo restrictions, safety checkpoints.

reply

But, if there isn’t a LE officer on site. What is your solution? Most gun owners are not amateurs. (IMO I would rather have an amateur shooting than none at all.) When to do the background checks? During, after or as it is now....a background check has been done, along with fingerprints.

Whenever a firearm is purchased legally it states it was registered. Mandatory firearm training was required to get a CWP. We don’t need licensing....stepping on the 2nd Amendment! There should be NO ammo restrictions and safety checkpoints....again stepping on the 2nd Amendment! It’s not your business or the government to know how much ammo I purchase. Target practice at a shooting range takes a lot of ammo or i may be target practicing in the country. I may be a hunter.

Again you are blaming the weapon and not the one doing the killing. You never answered how you would handle the situation. Just sit there hiding and waiting for your turn to be shot. I have a feeling you would not be part of the group who rushed the terrorists on the plane which crashed in PA. You would just sit in your seat waiting for LE. After all their weapons were box cutters.

BTW, regarding the use of knives:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5251268/london-stabbings-2018-clapham-shepherds-bush-crouch-hill-kingsland-hammersmith-greenwich-latest/

Edit:A baseball beat to death 6 people and a little dog in Orlando. I don’t believe the baseball bat is going on trial"

reply

You are making sweeping assumptions about me from a few words, and I am supposed to entrust you with saving my life? Your judgement is all NRA propaganda, gun industry marketing, and Fox News talking points. You mentioned the Las Vegas shooter. One man with a baseball bat can’t kill 59 people and injure 422 people in TEN MINUTES. Yes, bad things happen but they happen a lot faster and on a greater scale of destruction with range ballistic weapons.

reply

No, it’s not NRA propaganda. My beliefs do not come from the “gun industry marketing” and Fox News. They come from being raised around guns. High power rifles hanging on the wall. They come from going to high school, walking side by side with guys who were on their way to the Gun Club....all the while carrying their weapon on their shoulders. So, you might try listening to the truth instead of taking in the pablum fed constantly by the other networks.

“One man with a baseball bat can’t kill 59 people and injure 422 people in TEN MINUTES.”

Granted, but pressure cooker bombs or molotov cocktails can cause many people to die.

Something has happened to the psyche of the nation, be it mind altering drugs such as Ritalin “Ritalin is the common name for methylphenidate, classified by the Drug Enforcement Administration as a Schedule II narcotic—the same classification as cocaine, morphine and amphetamines. It is abused by teens for its stimulant effects.” As a result most of the mass shooting perpetrators in school shootings were on or had been on Ritalin. Add to the drug, loners who were bullied.

I do regret making sweeping assumptions about you. I’m sorry if I stepped on your toes and broad brushed you, but you still haven’t answered what you would do, (God forbid) if caught in such a situation.

reply

I agree with everything you said, except for the part about Ritalin. First off all, Ritalin isn't used as much as it once was. Adderall is now the go to drug for ADD and ADHD. I was actually on it for a year in high school, along with many other people and I can say from experience it does not induce violence. Its also widely bought it sold in both high schools and colleges.

I'm also skeptical that most of the mass shooters were or had been on it. Do you have a source for that claim? With all do respect, I think that's a scapegoat. An estimated 16 million Americans take these drugs on a daily basis. I think we would be seeing many more shootings if it were the culprit. Looking at pictures of these shooters, they all seem touched in the head. My best guess is the problem is a combination of mental illness, revenge, loneliness, isolation, bullying and notoriety

reply

I do have a list even though it hasn’t been updated. The drug along with being a loner and/or bullied can manifest into suicide or a mass shooting. We are the same as we were 60 years ago, went to school, arguments happened, but were settled with fisticuffs....not firearms. What has changed? Could it be due to more broken families, isolation, violent video games which desensitizes the human soul, social media bullying, and....mind altering drugs.

I’m sorry I believe ADHD is a condition thought up by the pharmaceutical companies to create and sell more drugs. Many scientists now say it’s a fake condition. The drug companies weren’t satisfied with drugging only kids they needed to get adults believing in ADHD in order to sell more drugs.

When my grandson was a an elementary student he couldn’t sit still in class. Why? He was bored. He was building with Legos when he was a little over 1 year old. Between 2 & 3 years of age he was learning the computer. So, naturally he was bored because he wasn’t interested in what was being taught. Next thing we knew the school was demanding he be put on Ritalin.

My daughter refused the “suggestion” informing the school she wasn’t drugging her son so he would sit in class like a good little soldier! Social Services showed up at her door questioning why she wouldn’t “cooperate” (reminded us of a re-education program). Her answer to them was a note from a psychologist stating the grandson didn’t need Ritalin....ADHD is a cop out for the teachers. No discipline in the home leads to uncontrollable kids. To make things easier drug the undisciplined ones along with the bored fidgeted ones. George Orwell’s 1984 is upon us! A little late, but it’s here.

reply

There is absolutely no evidence that Ritalin causes mass shootings. That is an incredibly far fetched assumption. Ritalin has been used since the 1950's and Amphetamine was first used as a medicine in the 1920's. There were never as many mass shootings as there are today. Can I see that list by the way? The video game theory has also been debunked long ago. All countries play violent video games, especially Japan and South Korea, who happen to have the lowest crime rates in the world.

ADHD is real, but absolutely over diagnosed for the benefit of the pharmaceutical companies. I agree with this. For people who actually have it, try to think of it less as boredom issue and more of an impulsive behavior situation. To be fair, though, it makes me sick how schools push these drugs on kids such as your grandson, who clearly doesn't seem to have ADHD. However, there is a small segment of the population who benefit from these drugs. My friend was hyperactive from a young age. He was off the wall and couldn't sit still. He came from a good family and it was never a question of discipline or family values. Adderall calmed him down, so he could focus and live his life normally. He still takes it to this day and lives a normal life.

If anything, which I have mentioned before, I think there should be more research on depression and anxiety medication, specifically SSRI's, which already have black box warnings for suicide in young people, along with warnings about violence. SSRI's double the risk of violence and suicide in healthy adults. Ritalin and Adderall don't have these warning.

You seem very knowledgeable about the whole gun control situation and I can respect that, but I'm going to have to disagree with you about the Ritalin angle.

reply

From the following article: “In a study of thirty-one drugs that are disproportionately linked to reports of violence toward others, five of the top ten are antidepressants. These are Prozac, Paxil, Luvox, Effexor and Pristiq. *Two other drugs that are for treating ADHD are also in the top ten which means these are being given to children who could then become violent.* One could conclude from this study alone that antidepressants cause both suicidal thoughts and violent behavior. This is a prescription for mass shootings.”

https://www.cchrflorida.org/antidepressants-are-a-prescription-for-mass-shootings/

https://rense.com/general13/kidsf.htm

From:https://www.naturalnews.com/039752_mass_shootings_psychiatric_drugs_antidepressants.html

“The overwhelming evidence points to the signal largest common factor in all of these incidents is the fact that all of the perpetrators were either actively taking powerful psychotropic drugs or had been at some point in the immediate past before they committed their crimes.”

Notice the ones taking Ritalin! Just remember Ritalin is a psychotropic drug....the same as cocaine! Ritalin alters the brain!

reply

I'm going to give you some friendly advice here. Fact check and research your sources before you post links.

That first link is an organization created by Scientology, so you can disregard anything it says. Besides being a cult, they have some very skewed views on psychiatry, such as blaming 9/11 and the Holocaust on it.

The third is a well known conspiracy theory and pseudoscience website. They seriously post articles about things like chemtrails and other quackery.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/natural-news/

Yes, Ritalin is a psychotropic drug, so what? Caffeine, alcohol and cannabis are also psychotropic drugs, that doesn't automatically make it bad. I've tried both ritalin and cocaine and I can tell you without a doubt cocaine is stronger. Ritalin just makes you concentrate and helps with your attention span.

"No links between Ritalin and school shootings, as NRA's Oliver North claimed"
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/may/22/oliver-north/no-connection-ritalin-school-shootings-nra/

This is exactly why I let my NRA license lapse. It sickens me that the NRA is pushing such a ridiculous theory without having any evidence.

reply

Thank you for the advice and the link. Before I post a link I attempt to be fair by reading about the source. I assumed the 1st link to be objective; Citizens Commission on Human Rights. I debated whether I should post the 3rd link, but the cases referenced were
the deciding factor. The 2nd link resulted in no information.

Re: Ritalin. If a kid can sit for hours playing a video game s/he is concentrating and the attention span is most assuredly in place. So why drug a kid because he fidgets in a classroom? Is it possible it’s a result of boredom? Again I go back 60 years; what has changed? Drugs are on the scene. The psyche has changed. It’s become an easy out to drug kids to keep them still.

reply

Drugs have always been on the scene

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2377281/

reply

I’m aware of this fact. Original Coca-Cola had a trace of cocaine. Drugs have definitely been on the scene as they were once used for medicinal uses. We could purchase paregoric (tincture of opium) over the counter to give to a colicky baby. We also rubbed it on their gums when teething.

And recreational drugs have been widespread. But, I’ve been discussing Ritalin with Padeen; the wanton drugging of our children in order to keep them still. Also, whether it is a cause and effect to mass shootings. We didn’t drug our kids in the past.

reply

I understand. I am disputing the idea of a substance being the cause of mass shootings. It's far more complex and nuanced than kids+amphetamine=shooter. And I completely agree that kids are being unnecessarily drugged -- but there's a lot of other shifts that have happened over those same 60 years.

reply

These are the points I’m attempting to convey. We’ve always had guns, have always been around them. So, what has changed? Look at the list of mass murderers, what drugs they were taking, and did they disassociate themselves from others, maybe they were bullied, broken families, etc. Put all those factors together and possibly, just possibly there’s a making of a future mass murderer.

Take the drugs out of the picture, we had broken families, we had loners, we had bullies, we had guns, but what we didn’t have were the number of mass shootings which have become so prevalent today. Charles Whitman on top of the University of Texas tower (1966) is the only one I can recall.

reply

None of the things you mention remain static across 60 years --ie, to the same extent or degree.

But let's take a look at your Ritalin suggestion and peel back one layer. Do young kids ask for it? No. Their parents think there's something wrong about the way they behave, right? Why? Don't you have to ask that first? Isn't that an example of a shift in parenting? What's changed about their attitude towards these kids? How about in other areas? Are parents more or less indulgent with their kids? How about baseline standards of conduct? Looser or more strict? Has technology made us expect instant gratification more than ever before? Was the internet around 60 years ago? Social media? How about cable in most households? Video games? I'm not saying any of those things are the cause. But I am saying things are hardly the same as they've been. The landscape has changed in too many more ways to mention. Things are never the way they used to be (as one generation loves to remind the next). I have my own theories as to why this happens but this isn't the forum for that.

reply

You said it most succinctly....and I agree with your assessment. My prior posts stated as much. Too many things thrown into the mix, but parents drugging their kids for a nonexistent syndrome can/will be just enough to cross the line into violence. Instead of TV raising our kids, violent video games are the new nannies which desensitizes the soul.
I would be most agreeable to read your theories if you care to PM me.

reply

[deleted]

Those phones are causing people to be zombies, but they like to say they have a chemical imbalance (and some abbreviation or acronym)

reply

Your faith in the combat abilities of "trained law enforcement" is misplaced.

reply

i think of this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuAbRoZzg6E

except with guns

reply