Days Since Last Shooting II

[SJHovey]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

But we should just accept these mass killings. You are 100% ok with them continuing on since they are statistically insignificant.

Obviously no, I would prefer that mass killings not occur. But I'd also prefer that people not die from sticking foreign objects in their rectum. The desire to see less of those events doesn't cause me to believe we should expend an inordinate amount of time, money, or political capital debating them. It isn't worth the time or money.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

IMO, those "greater cause" people thought they had a higher purpose of some sort; to serve that bigger cause.

My point being, one cannot treat all these acts as the same, because they are not. One must go on a case by case basis.

And it matters in the sense that while it doesn't excuse the act nor actor, it might help to explain WHY they did it, and maybe give us a way to prevent future similar acts.

But you are making an assumption based on small parts of a large story. Why is it Whitey McShootsupachurch has "mental issues" but it is a step too far to assume Omar Al-Blowmyselfup might not have the same issue? Are you saying the religious belief trumps mental illness somehow? What if the Church Shooter said "For Jesus!!" do we ignore what might be "mental issues" because now he is doing it in the name of God?

You assume the situations are different but dont want to actually look into whether they are or arent. You (and most others) are taking the lazy approach of actually trying to figure out "why". Biases are playing in heavily and excuses are running wild. What if the Muslim was a Schizo like the Vegas Shooter is supposedly...is he no longer a terrorist?

People need to find patterns in the chaos. Random White Guy kills a bunch in a church...he must have mental difficulties. Black guy kills someone in DT Chicago he must be a thug who probably is in a gang dealing drugs. Muslim guy commits a terrorist act, he must be a full on islamist always looking for a way to strike against the Infidel. Once you have the story that works you dont look further and whatever you find backs up your biases. No one ever says "what snapped in Omar's mind that made him think this was the way to get to heaven when he never cared before?" they just assume he was always evil and write it off. Meanwhile every possible mitigating factor will get thrown out to try and rationalize what Whitey did because why else would he do it? It is so transparent it is ridiculous...

 

[wolverineTrumpet]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

We are sitting here arguing about something that is statistically meaningless. I'm sure it's meaningful to any family member who had someone killed in one of these events, but honestly these mass shootings are statistically meaningless in the overall scheme of things, notwithstanding the incredible amounts of media coverage they receive.

I think it was 538 that did a study, although I can't be sure. They went back to the University of Texas clock tower shooting of 1966 and discovered that there have been something like 1000 deaths that resulted from a mass shooting incident, which I think they defined as something like 4 or 5 deaths. During that same time period there have probably been a half million gun homicides in the U.S., which means that these mass shooting events account for something like two one thousandths of the gun deaths during that time frame. If you compared it to the number of homicides as a whole, I have no idea how many zeros would follow the decimal point.

In other words, people are all up in arms (pun intended) about how we've got to somehow stop these mass shootings when we might as well be spending the time figuring out how to avoid asteroids.

If we could avoid asteroids and had other countries to model after where asteroids are less of a problem...why wouldn't we do that?
Yes, deaths from mass shootings are significantly less than deaths from other gun violence (homicides, suicides). However, to address the overall issue of gun violence, we must start somewhere. It seems like with the publicity that mass shootings get, and the leaps that would have to be taken to justify a citizen's "right" to an assault rifle, perhaps this is a good place to start.

 

[jerphisch]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

Hovey has one thing right, the problem isn't mass shootings, it's gun violence. But we shouldn't ignore it, there are plenty of proven ways to discourage it.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

Handy:

You are also assuming a lot of things.

If Mr Texas was part of some die-hard religious group that wants non-members to perish, then the reasoning would be different. We have to look at the evidence brought forward, try and figure it out from there.

As of right now, Mr Texas had a violent past, had made threats, beat up his woman and his kid...something is not clicking there. As for NYC, as far as we know, he was being groomed/taught that non-Muslims must perish. He was being radicalized. Again, something is not clicking there, but in a different way. I don't know if we'll ever have the concrete answers, we can only go by what we know.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

If we could avoid asteroids and had other countries to model after where asteroids are less of a problem...why wouldn't we do that?
Yes, deaths from mass shootings are significantly less than deaths from other gun violence (homicides, suicides). However, to address the overall issue of gun violence, we must start somewhere. It seems like with the publicity that mass shootings get, and the leaps that would have to be taken to justify a citizen's "right" to an assault rifle, perhaps this is a good place to start.

I agree 100% with the idea that if we are going to do something about gun violence, use of the mass shootings as a conversation starter is a great idea. However, I'm not certain I agree with the idea that the best way to proceed is by taking little nibbles at it, like the assault weapons ban. Here is why.

When we pass a law like the assault weapons ban, gun violence doesn't decrease, as is clearly shown in the chart I linked to earlier. But two things do happen. First, politicians and others start congratulating themselves on "addressing the problem" and suddenly the problem gets pushed out of the way for other problems. It's the "feel good" effect of useless laws. It looks like we're doing something to solve the problem, but we haven't really done anything.

Second, you give ammunition (pun intended again) to people who will oppose the next step that you want to take. For example, a ban on handguns. Opponents are just going to be able to correctly point out that gun violence didn't decrease when you passed the assault weapons ban, how will this be any different.

By trying to accomplish it in twenty different steps, you basically require yourself to fight, and win, a very difficult fight twenty different times.

In an ideal world gun opponents could follow the gay marriage road map. Go for a complete victory in those locations where you know you'll win, then keep expanding outward. The problem as I see it is that you're going to have to get by the Second Amendment as interpreted by the current court. That means either changing the court, considerably, or repealing the Amendment. You need 38 states. I'd start working on it now.

 

[jerphisch]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

I agree 100% with the idea that if we are going to do something about gun violence, use of the mass shootings as a conversation starter is a great idea. However, I'm not certain I agree with the idea that the best way to proceed is by taking little nibbles at it, like the assault weapons ban. Here is why.

When we pass a law like the assault weapons ban, gun violence doesn't decrease, as is clearly shown in the chart I linked to earlier. But two things do happen. First, politicians and others start congratulating themselves on "addressing the problem" and suddenly the problem gets pushed out of the way for other problems. It's the "feel good" effect of useless laws. It looks like we're doing something to solve the problem, but we haven't really done anything.

Second, you give ammunition (pun intended again) to people who will oppose the next step that you want to take. For example, a ban on handguns. Opponents are just going to be able to correctly point out that gun violence didn't decrease when you passed the assault weapons ban, how will this be any different.

By trying to accomplish it in twenty different steps, you basically require yourself to fight, and win, a very difficult fight twenty different times.

In an ideal world gun opponents could follow the gay marriage road map. Go for a complete victory in those locations where you know you'll win, then keep expanding outward. The problem as I see it is that you're going to have to get by the Second Amendment as interpreted by the current court. That means either changing the court, considerably, or repealing the Amendment. You need 38 states. I'd start working on it now.

I'll post this again...you CAN make incremental progress within the confines of the 2nd. Just because you keep saying we can't do anything doesn't make it true.

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11120184/gun-control-study-international-evidence

 

[Kepler]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

In an ideal world gun opponents could follow the gay marriage road map. Go for a complete victory in those locations where you know you'll win, then keep expanding outward. The problem as I see it is that you're going to have to get by the Second Amendment as interpreted by the current court. That means either changing the court, considerably, or repealing the Amendment. You need 38 states. I'd start working on it now.

An amendment isn't required, though. The current interpretation is the culmination of an aggressive forty-year campaign by the right to bend the amendment into something completely unrecognizable to the Founders. All that need happen is for that political fever to break. Consider the only reason the Court is the way it is is the GOP stole 2 elections out of 5.

This hard right Court is a highly artificial situation. It won't last unless they literally knock over our democratic institutions with a coup. A hard rain's coming.

 

[alfablue]

I believe the assault weapons ban was from about 1994-2004.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg

Look at your graph again. Gun violence went down after 1994. It didn’t go up. It went from a peak of about 15k in 1993 to about half that in 2001.

The ban didn’t increase shootings at all. And it reduced mass shootings, too.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

Look at your graph again. Gun violence went down after 1994. It didn’t go up. It went from a peak of about 15k in 1993 to about half that in 2001.

The ban didn’t increase shootings at all. And it reduced mass shootings, too.

I didn't say it went down. I posted the graph to show that shootings with guns other than handguns (i.e., assault rifles and all other guns) has remained almost static for the 28 years between 1976 and 2004, with a very, very slight downward trend, and the assault rifle ban did nothing to affect those numbers.

 

[MissThundercat]

According to "The Federalist:" "When The Saints Of First Baptist Church Were Murdered, God Was Answering Their Prayers."



(Apologies if posted already)

I posted that to the religion thread.

 

[dave122793]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

Obviously no, I would prefer that mass killings not occur. But I'd also prefer that people not die from sticking foreign objects in their rectum. The desire to see less of those events doesn't cause me to believe we should expend an inordinate amount of time, money, or political capital debating them. It isn't worth the time or money.

That's just an incredibly heinous insult, not only to the people to lost their lives, but to all the brothers, sisters, wives, husbands, children, grandchildren, friends, coworkers, emergency responders, and on and on who had their lives affected by these endless tragedies. Really one of the more disgusting things someone could say about it. I pity you.

 

[aparch]

I posted that to the religion thread.

Whoops. I don't wander over to that thread too often, if ever.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

And Handy: NYC was done for religious reasons. TX was done because the guy was mentally off.

How the eff do you know that?

So how do you explain the low point in mass shootings during the assault weapons ban, then? https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-a-tures/did-the-assault-weapons-b_b_9740352.html

What cause the low point DURING the ban years? We went from 2.05/year over the 20 years prior, 1.6/year for the 10 years of it, and over 4/year since it ended. (the numbers are the # of shootings of more than 5 people at once, not 4).

What other factors besides the availability of more effective mass killing machines caused the shooting rate to more than double?

As usual this was ignored or shrugged off as happenstance.

We are sitting here arguing about something that is statistically meaningless. I'm sure it's meaningful to any family member who had someone killed in one of these events, but honestly these mass shootings are statistically meaningless in the overall scheme of things, notwithstanding the incredible amounts of media coverage they receive.

What is the "statistically meaningful" counterargument to his point?

 

[joecct]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

I would think that anyone who walks into a church or a school or anywhere and starts blasting anyone and everyone is not all there in the head. It is not a rational act.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

I would think that anyone who walks into a church or a school or anywhere and starts blasting anyone and everyone is not all there in the head. It is not a rational act.

And he escaped from a mental facility, is reported to have mental disorders (plural, not singular), violent past...all the evidence is there. Something set him off, and he started shooting everyone. It's also reported that before he started shooting, Mr Texas made some sort of FB post where he hinted at he wasn't going to make it until the end of the day (or similar).

We ALL agree that if someone kills someone or many someones, something is messed up in the mind. However, is it radicalizing, a true mental disorder, what? Have to examine each situation after it happens.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

How about a culture of LESS GUNS???

Fewer.

Kepler gone all Stannis Baratheon on alfablue.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

Kepler gone all Stannis Baratheon on alfablue.

They'll bend the knee or I'll destroy them.

 

[alfablue]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

I didn't say it went down. I posted the graph to show that shootings with guns other than handguns (i.e., assault rifles and all other guns) has remained almost static for the 28 years between 1976 and 2004, with a very, very slight downward trend, and the assault rifle ban did nothing to affect those numbers.

So your WHOLE point is that the mass shootings are statistically insignificant, therefore we should not worry about them. Is that correct?


At one point, you claimed that the Assault Weapons Ban was not effective. And then claimed all the ban did was change murders from one form to another. All in the face of actual data, one that wasn't interpreted that mass shootings was significantly down in the period of the assault weapons ban. And I'm wondering how you can interpret a 50% reduction in gun shootings over less than 10 years a "very, very slight downward trend". The rise in gun deaths between 1988 and 1996 is not an insignificant blip. It's real. Just as is the decrease until 2001.

But the overall point that mass shootings are insignificant??? Really? People die in large numbers, mostly innocent people, and they are insignificant?

That seems like a cop out.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

As usual this was ignored or shrugged off as happenstance.

As usual??? I wasted endless amounts of time yesterday responding to pretty much every single question or argument made to me, even though most of them really didn't make a lot of sense compared with the evidence that exists out there, and many of them made the same arguments over and over again.

And yes, the answer is "chance," as I wrote before. But now I've answered the question directly to you so I shouldn't have to do that again.

For those who actually study the statistics on these things, one question that has come up is why since 2011 have we seen an increase in the frequency of mass shootings. I don't know that we've seen a big change in the total number of deaths, but I believe that data shows that prior to 2011, a mass shooting (which I think they define as 5 or more) occurred something like once every 200 days. Since 2011 it's been something like once every 65 days. That's a pretty dramatic change, and one that has puzzled researchers. What happened in 2011? The gun laws didn't change. There weren't any mental health things that changed. It's not like there were a bunch of societal factors that occurred in 2011.

But what it shows, and what the honest, independent intelligent researchers will tell you, is that there are way, way too many factors that go into the mass shootings to be able to claim that something like a ban or lack of ban on assault weapons is the cause, is a cause or has any meaningful impact.