Today's mass shooting in the US

[Greebo]

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/12/rubio-on-terrorist-watchlist/

Thanks but that still means 40,000 US citizens are deemed too danagerous to be allowed on a plane yet are perfectly okay to own assualt rifles. Makes no sense. As the stats show, 1435 of those 40,000 US citizens applied to buy guns in the last 5 years and 1256 got approved and bought guns.

To me that is indefensible

 

[Scort]

I defy anybody who went through normal teenage development to say there weren't times they got, in hindsight, scarily angry about not a lot.

Back in the day though you got angry at your parents etc, people who you, generally, couldn't really hate to the same degree you can a stranger who has been dehumanised by the highest power in the land.

I got my teenage frustrations out by going into the woodshed and hacking the hell out of a log with an axe.

In the US today, through the internet, teenagers are being politicised too early by a rhetoric of hatred and dehumanisation AND have access to guns.

Right here!

Born in the 80s and a teenager in the 90s, never once did I get 'scarily angry' with anyone or anything - the most was probably chucking a megadrive joypad on the floor, or a rapid on/off of the Playstation when I lost something. But I wouldn't feel the need to take myself off somewhere and hack away at anything, nor would I have any desire to inflict pain or suffering on anyone else for the minor blips. And I had a completely normal teenage development.

My thoughts are... someone born in the 90s and a teen in 00s would likely be different - what with the internet and broadband being the norm. And kids born in the 00s and teens now, would be completely different again - what with 'social media' being the norm; and all the fake personas that go with it - I forget the name of the professor I recently watched, but he was talking about how young people now, are often living a life within social media - as if it were reality; like some sort of Matrix-esq existence!

Of course I am only focusing on the impact 'tech' has on growing up, as I am sure that there are countless other factors that will influence the outcome on someones makeup in life; but "these days" (sounding like an old duffer now) it seems like the interactions between teenagers, primarily takes place virtually via social media - that in itself (imo) really helps to dehumanize people towards each other. Also, I expect that young impressionable minds, become used to being able to do and say things to others, without it impacting them emotionally - in the same way I'm sure some of us, have gobbed off on Xbox chat or your chose PC [ahem master race] comms app; you won't get a punch on the nose, so you talk **** and move on.

Early exposure to political rhetoric is a very good point, as there have been some pretty bile-filled comments from the likes of Trump, and again, a young impressionable mind will probably gravitate towards that. If there is merit to the whole thing about young white males being actively pushed down (so to speak), then they may view the extreme views of some, as a cause worth fighting for - to give their own lives meaning maybe.

But I still think that there must be an element of mental illness to these mass shooters - or we'd have hundreds, maybe thousands more.

Just my 2p.

 

[ianh]

If I'm walking around in Texas with a pistol holstered are you going to assume I'm going to shoot someone?

Yes. Because why else are you carrying the gun? Answer me that.

The vast majority of people in Texas are law abiding citizens who are allowed to open carry guns with some provisos, so for most it's an everyday occurrence to see a fellow Texan with a holstered firearm in open-carry towns and therefore most people don't automatically assume "bad intent" vs the thought of "that person has the ability to protect themselves and potentially me" so your UK-centric attitude of "a gun is a 'bad' thing" doesn't exist for the majority of Texans, most of whom grew-up around firearms.

So again, Texans (as mentioned several times in the quote) with daily access to firearms do not think like you, a person from the UK who probably never sees real guns, so your discussion point is difficult to understand.

Thanks but that still means 40,000 US citizens are deemed too dangerous to be allowed on a plane yet are perfectly okay to own assault rifles. Makes no sense.

Sorry but no they aren't. I know the conversation always swings around to this (and this is nothing personal to you Greebo) but getting the terminology right really helps when you're in a pro-gun/anti-gun discussion even if it annoys people to learn the differences -

"Assault Rifles" are extremely heavily regulated and are unable to be bought by the vast majority of US gun owners. To be called an Assault rifle the most important aspect is that the firearm must be capable of selective fire - that means BOTH fully automatic & semi-automatic operation whilst firing an intermediate cartridge (a medium sized round like a .223/5.56/5.45mm etc). There's a bunch of other characteristics but those are the important ones.

"Assault Weapons" are semi-automatic only and are the type most commonly bought in the US after handguns (which were used in 67% of US murders in 2017 vs just 4% for Assault Weapons). They may look the same as Assault Rifles but they are absolutely different. However it's understandable that confusion occurs when "uneducated about firearms" journalists/politicians use both terms for the same firearm, which muddies the water for the general population instead of accurately conveying facts.

Again, getting the terminology is important when you're trying to get your argument across - get it right and people tend to be less instantly dismissive as it shows you may actual know something rather than simply reacting on feelings alone (which will generally be instantly ignored by pro-gun people).

 

[wesimmo]

Right here!

Born in the 80s and a teenager in the 90s, never once did I get 'scarily angry' with anyone or anything - the most was probably chucking a megadrive joypad on the floor, or a rapid on/off of the Playstation when I lost something. But I wouldn't feel the need to take myself off somewhere and hack away at anything, nor would I have any desire to inflict pain or suffering on anyone else for the minor blips. And I had a completely normal teenage development.

My thoughts are... someone born in the 90s and a teen in 00s would likely be different - what with the internet and broadband being the norm. And kids born in the 00s and teens now, would be completely different again - what with 'social media' being the norm; and all the fake personas that go with it - I forget the name of the professor I recently watched, but he was talking about how young people now, are often living a life within social media - as if it were reality; like some sort of Matrix-esq existence!

Of course I am only focusing on the impact 'tech' has on growing up, as I am sure that there are countless other factors that will influence the outcome on someones makeup in life; but "these days" (sounding like an old duffer now) it seems like the interactions between teenagers, primarily takes place virtually via social media - that in itself (imo) really helps to dehumanize people towards each other. Also, I expect that young impressionable minds, become used to being able to do and say things to others, without it impacting them emotionally - in the same way I'm sure some of us, have gobbed off on Xbox chat or your chose PC [ahem master race] comms app; you won't get a punch on the nose, so you talk **** and move on.

Early exposure to political rhetoric is a very good point, as there have been some pretty bile-filled comments from the likes of Trump, and again, a young impressionable mind will probably gravitate towards that. If there is merit to the whole thing about young white males being actively pushed down (so to speak), then they may view the extreme views of some, as a cause worth fighting for - to give their own lives meaning maybe.

But I still think that there must be an element of mental illness to these mass shooters - or we'd have hundreds, maybe thousands more.

Just my 2p.

You never got into silly playground scraps over nothing? I honestly just thought it was something kids did, it wasn't a rare occurrence in the schools i went to to hear "scrap, scrap, scrap" being shouted and a big circle of people watching 2 kids do a bit of punching, but ok I'll pull back on the "anybody".

Also, when i say scarily i meant out of proportion, like the time my brother broke his thumb hitting me over some silly disagreement about who started putting who off first when playing New Zealand Story, things that as an adult you recognise blew up out all proportion.

When you combine that tendency as a teenager to get disproportionately emotional and angry over perceived slights or injustice with mental illness (on the rise), access to guns (unfettered) and hate speech being normalised, what do they expect?

 

[wesimmo]

The vast majority of people in Texas are law abiding citizens who are allowed to open carry guns with some provisos, so for most it's an everyday occurrence to see a fellow Texan with a holstered firearm in open-carry towns and therefore most people don't automatically assume "bad intent" vs the thought of "that person has the ability to protect themselves and potentially me" so your UK-centric attitude of "a gun is a 'bad' thing" doesn't exist for the majority of Texans, most of whom grew-up around firearms.

So again, Texans (as mentioned several times in the quote) with daily access to firearms do not think like you, a person from the UK who probably never sees real guns, so your discussion point is difficult to understand.



Sorry but no they aren't. I know the conversation always swings around to this (and this is nothing personal to you Greebo) but getting the terminology right really helps when you're in a pro-gun/anti-gun discussion even if it annoys people to learn the differences -

"Assault Rifles" are extremely heavily regulated and are unable to be bought by the vast majority of US gun owners. To be called an Assault rifle the most important aspect is that the firearm must be capable of selective fire - that means BOTH fully automatic & semi-automatic operation whilst firing an intermediate cartridge (a medium sized round like a .223/5.56/5.45mm etc). There's a bunch of other characteristics but those are the important ones.

"Assault Weapons" are semi-automatic only and are the type most commonly bought in the US after handguns (which were used in 67% of US murders in 2017 vs just 4% for Assault Weapons). They may look the same as Assault Rifles but they are absolutely different. However it's understandable that confusion occurs when "uneducated about firearms" journalists/politicians use both terms for the same firearm, which muddies the water for the general population instead of accurately conveying facts.

Again, getting the terminology is important when you're trying to get your argument across - get it right and people tend to be less instantly dismissive as it shows you may actual know something rather than simply reacting on feelings alone (which will generally be instantly ignored by pro-gun people).

It really doesn't, being semantic about the terminology, however, does make you sound like an apologist. Everybody knows what we're talking about, pointy sticks that fire hot bits of metal at people at a rate no one needs to have the capability to do in every day life.

 

[Scort]

You never got into silly playground scraps over nothing? I honestly just thought it was something kids did, it wasn't a rare occurrence in the schools i went to to hear "scrap, scrap, scrap" being shouted and a big circle of people watching 2 kids do a bit of punching, but ok I'll pull back on the "anybody".

Also, when i say scarily i meant out of proportion, like the time my brother broke his thumb hitting me over some silly disagreement about who started putting who off first when playing New Zealand Story, things that as an adult you recognise blew up out all proportion.

When you combine that tendency as a teenager to get disproportionately emotional and angry over perceived slights or injustice with mental illness (on the rise), access to guns (unfettered) and hate speech being normalised, what do they expect?

Nope, nor did friends - in fact, even in quite a crappy Swindon secondary school - this sort of thing was very rare. Maybe we were all too chilled out in the 90s or something

I guess that hormones probably play a huge part in the sort of flying off the handle you suggest, as I'm sure people have swung both ways; either aggressive and angry, or emotional and blubbering over nothing. But the perceived slights you mention, could be quite the catalyst - certainly if people have been used to mouthing off online, with no recourse, and desensitized to face to face human interactions. It's good that we don't have such readily available firearms over here, as I'm sure that these slights would lead to people settling them with a bullet.

 

[Greebo]

The vast majority of people in Texas are law abiding citizens who are allowed to open carry guns with some provisos, so for most it's an everyday occurrence to see a fellow Texan with a holstered firearm in open-carry towns and therefore most people don't automatically assume "bad intent" vs the thought of "that person has the ability to protect themselves and potentially me" so your UK-centric attitude of "a gun is a 'bad' thing" doesn't exist for the majority of Texans, most of whom grew-up around firearms.

So again, Texans (as mentioned several times in the quote) with daily access to firearms do not think like you, a person from the UK who probably never sees real guns, so your discussion point is difficult to understand.



Sorry but no they aren't. I know the conversation always swings around to this (and this is nothing personal to you Greebo) but getting the terminology right really helps when you're in a pro-gun/anti-gun discussion even if it annoys people to learn the differences -

"Assault Rifles" are extremely heavily regulated and are unable to be bought by the vast majority of US gun owners. To be called an Assault rifle the most important aspect is that the firearm must be capable of selective fire - that means BOTH fully automatic & semi-automatic operation whilst firing an intermediate cartridge (a medium sized round like a .223/5.56/5.45mm etc). There's a bunch of other characteristics but those are the important ones.

"Assault Weapons" are semi-automatic only and are the type most commonly bought in the US after handguns (which were used in 67% of US murders in 2017 vs just 4% for Assault Weapons). They may look the same as Assault Rifles but they are absolutely different. However it's understandable that confusion occurs when "uneducated about firearms" journalists/politicians use both terms for the same firearm, which muddies the water for the general population instead of accurately conveying facts.

Again, getting the terminology is important when you're trying to get your argument across - get it right and people tend to be less instantly dismissive as it shows you may actual know something rather than simply reacting on feelings alone (which will generally be instantly ignored by pro-gun people).

Point taken but its irrelevant. The fact that you are considered too dangerous to be allowed to fly and you are still allowed to own and continue to buy handguns is bad enough. If you are too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to own guns. End of.

The fact that you can be a full card carrying member of ISIS but so long as you dont have a criminal record you can be as armed to the teeth as you want as otherwise it would infringe your rights sums up whats wrong with US mentality.

 

[Felon]

It really doesn't, being semantic about the terminology, however, does make you sound like an apologist. Everybody knows what we're talking about, pointy sticks that fire hot bits of metal at people at a rate no one needs to have the capability to do in every day life.

This is essentially it, some of the more pro-gun people like to clinically read through people's posts looking for the slightest misuse in terminology, they then pounce on the person in question with having the appearance of lots of knowledge around guns, in an attempt to simultaneously teach them a lesson and make them look like they're talking nonsense.

When in actual fact, an ordinary person has no problem in understanding exactly what we're talking about - which is exactly as you say; Firearms which can produce a totally unnecessary amount of firepower, call them whatever you will, it's totally clear and unambiguous to someone who isn't banging a pro-gun agenda.

The vast majority of people in Texas are law abiding citizens who are allowed to open carry guns with some provisos, so for most it's an everyday occurrence to see a fellow Texan with a holstered firearm in open-carry towns and therefore most people don't automatically assume "bad intent" vs the thought of "that person has the ability to protect themselves and potentially me" so your UK-centric attitude of "a gun is a 'bad' thing" doesn't exist for the majority of Texans, most of whom grew-up around firearms.

So again, Texans (as mentioned several times in the quote) with daily access to firearms do not think like you, a person from the UK who probably never sees real guns, so your discussion point is difficult to understand.

Perhaps it's a case of, 'if you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got' and looking through the list of mass shootings that have occurred in Texas in recent years, maybe they should throw their current way of thinking in the bin, because they're getting exactly what they're angling for - a huge stack of preventable deaths.

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

 

[wesimmo]

Nope, nor did friends - in fact, even in quite a crappy Swindon secondary school - this sort of thing was very rare. Maybe we were all too chilled out in the 90s or something

I guess that hormones probably play a huge part in the sort of flying off the handle you suggest, as I'm sure people have swung both ways; either aggressive and angry, or emotional and blubbering over nothing. But the perceived slights you mention, could be quite the catalyst - certainly if people have been used to mouthing off online, with no recourse, and desensitized to face to face human interactions. It's good that we don't have such readily available firearms over here, as I'm sure that these slights would lead to people settling them with a bullet.

These slights on social media already do spill over, of course we still have shootings here, and obviously a lot of stabbings.

But that's because the law and it's enforcement aren't infallible, but adding more readily available guns into the mix wouldn't help so I don't understand why it's hard to see that reducing access to guns would help.

 

[StriderX]

These slights on social media already do spill over, of course we still have shootings here, and obviously a lot of stabbings.

But that's because the law and it's enforcement aren't infallible, but adding more readily available guns into the mix wouldn't help so I don't understand why it's hard to see that reducing access to guns would help.

I find that those on the defense of guns, jump right to the discussion of "banning" them as it edges the conversation to something that looks palatable for them to argue against, anyone arguing against controls is a tit.

It really comes down to not wanting to admit that they'd rather hundreds of people die every year, thousands of families suffering than to hinder their childish ability to grandstand and threaten people. Increasingly it's turning into a edgy adolescent culture, sad.

 

[StarShock]

...vs the thought of "that person has the ability to protect themselves and potentially me"

This argument always annoys me, exactly how many of these mass shootings happened in places that were open carry? and of those how many were made better because there were other people walking around with guns?

I'm pretty sure if there was a mass shooting that was stopped by a "good guy with a gun" it would get brought up every single time anyone ever says anything against gun ownership.

 

[Scam]

So again, Texans (as mentioned several times in the quote) with daily access to firearms do not think like you, a person from the UK who probably never sees real guns, so your discussion point is difficult to understand.

Ok fine, I probably skimmed over the point specifying Texas I'll admit that. Clearly they are more used to seeing people with guns. But it doesn't change my opinion in that why on earth do you need to carry a gun around? If it's a rainy day outside I don't carry sunglasses. Most people outside of open-carry states will see a gun and perceive it to be a threat. Honestly it's just like in the olden days where people walked around with swords etc. It's no more complicated than trying to intimidate everyone around you. End of story. Fortunately most developed countries got over letting stupid alphas get their own way through intimidation...

 

[foster grant]

This argument always annoys me, exactly how many of these mass shootings happened in places that were open carry? and of those how many were made better because there were other people walking around with guns?

I'm pretty sure if there was a mass shooting that was stopped by a "good guy with a gun" it would get brought up every single time anyone ever says anything against gun ownership.

I cant see anything changing at all

 

[200sols]

In that vein of thought though would other forms of attack in the US increase [proportionally] if guns were taken out of the equation?

I would say its harder to kill as many people without a gun, but that wasn't the point. I think its kind of stupid to say people use cars as weapons as a reason not to tighten gun controls.

 

[VincentHanna]

This argument always annoys me, exactly how many of these mass shootings happened in places that were open carry? and of those how many were made better because there were other people walking around with guns?

Texas/El Paso is open carry.
Ohio/Dayton is open carry.

 

[enkoda]

Point taken but its irrelevant. The fact that you are considered too dangerous to be allowed to fly and you are still allowed to own and continue to buy handguns is bad enough. If you are too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to own guns. End of.

Not quite "end of" because American citizens have the guaranteed constitutional right to bear arms. There is no such right to fly on a plane or drive a car.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

States/towns might be open carry, doesn’t mean firearms were allowed in those locations.

 

[ianh]

States/towns might be open carry, doesn’t mean firearms were allowed in those locations.

Correct, there are always provisos to any form of firearm carriage so, for example, despite being "open carry" it is still illegal to carry on on "education grounds" like a school or college etc amongst many other places.

It really doesn't, being semantic about the terminology, however, does make you sound like an apologist. Everybody knows what we're talking about, pointy sticks that fire hot bits of metal at people at a rate no one needs to have the capability to do in every day life.

Well I did say it would anger some people

Also regarding "make me sound like an apologist", well it'd be worse to be a person who sounds stupid because they keep making technically uninformed comments about something rather than using the correct terminology which, when used, would make them and their arguments sound more rational to others. However I realise that it may be hard to understand that I'm genuinely trying to help both you and your argument, but I really am.

 

[wesimmo]

Correct, there are always provisos to any form of firearm carriage so, for example, despite being "open carry" it is still illegal to carry on on "education grounds" like a school or college etc amongst many other places.



Well I did say it would anger some people

Also regarding "make me sound like an apologist", well it'd be worse to be a person who sounds stupid because they keep making technically uninformed comments about something rather than using the correct terminology which, when used, would make them and their arguments sound more rational to others. However I realise that it may be hard to understand that I'm genuinely trying to help both you and your argument, but I really am.

It didn't make me angry, it made me roll my eyes and dismiss anything you say on this point as you seem to be more concerned about terminology than the principle that a lot of people feel you don't need ANY gun when going shopping, and that the difference between having selectable rates of fire and size of rounds doesn't make any difference to that argument.

But obviously I'm just trying to be helpful and make sure your arguments are considered by people who don't sit in their rooms fapping to Guns and Ammo.

 

[VincentHanna]

States/towns might be open carry, doesn’t mean firearms were allowed in those locations.

Walmart allows guns, that where the El Paso shooting happened.