We have officially become inured to mass shootings.

[e-RICHIE]

This is a good thread.

There will always be someone who tries to add dark humor or snark.
Ignore them.

Thank you

[King Of Dirk]

It is not my intent to move goal posts or to distract from the discussion about gun policy in the United States. But since some have voiced concern that this thread is outliving its usefulness, I'd like to augment the discussion with a question. It is asked in good faith, with no agenda, and out of genuine curiosity about how Salonistas feel. If you can't/won't meet me halfway by answering/engaging in good faith, please don't expect the courtesy of a response.

I suspect we will all disagree about the proper allocation of blame between the availability of high-capacity semi-automatic firearms and the organisms who utilize them to slaughter innocents. I further suspect no staunch gun control advocate believes the immediate removal of all guns from all people would result in a year with zero homicides, and that no staunch gun rights advocate believes that, for example, the piece of shit in Las Vegas could have been as lethal with a shotgun designed for skeet shooting instead of a bumpstock-equipped semi-auto (gun owners: do you really believe he could have killed 58 people with an over/under 12 gauge?). [Short sidebar: is there no one willing to praise President Trump's Department of Justice for administratively banning bump stocks?]

That wasn't the question. This is: What is it about modern American society that has contributed to the escalation in both severity and frequency of these attacks?

I AM NOT going all "guns don't kill people, people kill people" on you, I swear. I'm simply noting a timeline: Charles Whitman, then...Columbine? I vaguely remember a McDonald's shooting sometime around (and maybe near) the LA Olympic Games, and there was the North Hollywood Bank shoot-out in 1997* (which is hard to categorize as a mass shooting; 2000 rounds were fired (~650 of those by police), and the only two dead were bank robbers...and I'm glad they aren't with us anymore, and the weapons the robbers used were illegally converted to fully-automatic, i.e. already banned).

So if we say Whitman in '69, McDonald's in CA (if I'm even remembering that correctly) around 1984, Columbine in 1999 - that's really exactly every 15 years. Now it seems these things happen every 15 weeks (or even days). I know there are more Ar-15s in private hands, and by a huge factor, but what has happened to make people (oh, let's just say it: MEN) want to use them?

Tangentially related question: if there were no high-capacity magazines in private hands, would these events be less frequent? I think honest people have to say they'd be less severe (every life matters, but I mean in terms of aggregate carnage). Some guy shot some guy in Richmond today, but you didn't hear about it. Are these nitwits going for high body counts to be newsworthy?




*I attribute the recent (and rapid) "militarization" of police departments to this event, or at least suggest the justification for it began with this event.


Edited to add: I know reforming and enforcing gun laws is part of the solution. What are the other parts? What else can be done (fuck that: what else can we do) to make this better?

[zachateseverything]

Did YOU read the link?

"......Research published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that living in a home where there are guns increased risk of homicide by 40 to 170% and the risk of suicide by 90 to 460%."

This is like 60 words in on the link you posted. Tell me how they produce a statistic on suicide in the 2nd paragraph while scrubbing suicidal people out of the data used in their study.

Did you read what you just posted? They clearly separated out the suicide and homicide risks. They did exactly what you said you wanted to see in your previous post.

Suicides and homicides are reported differently in the data.

I mean, jeebus...

[zachateseverything]

The elderly man was not walking onto his porch to fight criminals.
He was walking onto his front porch to check the source of a sound. He can do that.

He opted to be reasonably prepared. Good thing, in this case.
Had the 75 y.o. man instead been knifed to death many would just shrug and go to the next thread.

Actually, it sounds exactly like he was going out on his porch to kill people. There is zero reason to carry a handgun otherwise.

[Dallas Tex]

Did you read what you just posted? They clearly separated out the suicide and homicide risks. They did exactly what you said you wanted to see in your previous post.

Suicides and homicides are reported differently in the data.

I mean, jeebus...

Wow. You’re lying. That’s interesting. Interesting and weak. I’m putting the ‘ignore’ button on you.

[Colinmclelland]

He is allowed to be armed in his own house

Why carry knives while stealing cars?

Is it just me that finds this ironic?

[zachateseverything]

Wow. You’re lying. That’s interesting. Interesting and weak. I’m putting the ‘ignore’ button on you.

That's probably for the best. We're incapable of communicating with one another.

[Blue Jays]

"...Is it just me that finds this ironic?..."

So you feel criminals should be well-equipped with knives in case their intended elderly victims defend themselves?

[Colinmclelland]

So you feel criminals should be well-equipped with knives in case their intended elderly victims defend themselves?

My dad is 80, would i want him going out to investigate. No.

My eldest kid is 14. Can you rely on him to make smart decisions. No. Can you expect him to? No.

Being a dangerous arsehole at 14 doesn’t mean you’ll be a dangerous arsehole when you grow up. And at 14, you haven’t.

Adding a gun to the mix isn’t helpful. It could just as easily have been 1 old guy with 1 gun against a bunch of kids with a bunch of guns. Then what? How does that help him defend his stuff?

Yes, shit happens without guns, but you add a lot more guns and you seem to get a lot more shit happening. I think there’s a link, but maybe that’s just me

[BBB]

My thought about the old guy and gun scenario...

Cars are generally insured and can be replaced. Lives on the other hand.

It is in no way proportional to tackle an attempt to steal a car with a gun. It is an inanimate object and can be replaced. Otherwise, see immediately above.

Finally, there is something really effed up in a society where the first reaction to a noise at night is grabbing a gun. Surely I'm not alone in thinking this.

[Blue Jays]

"...Finally, there is something really effed up in a society where the first reaction by criminals being spotted by an elderly homeowner (while stealing his car) is for a half-dozen teenage thugs to rush at him with knives rather than just jumping back in their first stolen car and fleeing away. Surely I'm not alone in thinking this...”

Fixed it for you.

[Colinmclelland]

My plan is this when I've gone to bed, loud or unexpected noise I'll use the flashlight and call out. If there is someone in the house I'll lock the bedroom door, chamber a round, and call the police. I keep a baseball bat near the front door for other times.

If I had a plan like that my wife would be implementing her plan. We’d all be moving somewhere I didn’t feel a need for a plan.

[Colinmclelland]

Surely I'm not alone in thinking this.

Nope. Not alone there.

[colker]

It is not my intent to move goal posts or to distract from the discussion about gun policy in the United States. But since some have voiced concern that this thread is outliving its usefulness, I'd like to augment the discussion with a question. It is asked in good faith, with no agenda, and out of genuine curiosity about how Salonistas feel. If you can't/won't meet me halfway by answering/engaging in good faith, please don't expect the courtesy of a response.

I suspect we will all disagree about the proper allocation of blame between the availability of high-capacity semi-automatic firearms and the organisms who utilize them to slaughter innocents. I further suspect no staunch gun control advocate believes the immediate removal of all guns from all people would result in a year with zero homicides, and that no staunch gun rights advocate believes that, for example, the piece of shit in Las Vegas could have been as lethal with a shotgun designed for skeet shooting instead of a bumpstock-equipped semi-auto (gun owners: do you really believe he could have killed 58 people with an over/under 12 gauge?). [Short sidebar: is there no one willing to praise President Trump's Department of Justice for administratively banning bump stocks?]

That wasn't the question. This is: What is it about modern American society that has contributed to the escalation in both severity and frequency of these attacks?

I AM NOT going all "guns don't kill people, people kill people" on you, I swear. I'm simply noting a timeline: Charles Whitman, then...Columbine? I vaguely remember a McDonald's shooting sometime around (and maybe near) the LA Olympic Games, and there was the North Hollywood Bank shoot-out in 1997* (which is hard to categorize as a mass shooting; 2000 rounds were fired (~650 of those by police), and the only two dead were bank robbers...and I'm glad they aren't with us anymore, and the weapons the robbers used were illegally converted to fully-automatic, i.e. already banned).

So if we say Whitman in '69, McDonald's in CA (if I'm even remembering that correctly) around 1984, Columbine in 1999 - that's really exactly every 15 years. Now it seems these things happen every 15 weeks (or even days). I know there are more Ar-15s in private hands, and by a huge factor, but what has happened to make people (oh, let's just say it: MEN) want to use them?

Tangentially related question: if there were no high-capacity magazines in private hands, would these events be less frequent? I think honest people have to say they'd be less severe (every life matters, but I mean in terms of aggregate carnage). Some guy shot some guy in Richmond today, but you didn't hear about it. Are these nitwits going for high body counts to be newsworthy?




*I attribute the recent (and rapid) "militarization" of police departments to this event, or at least suggest the justification for it began with this event.


Edited to add: I know reforming and enforcing gun laws is part of the solution. What are the other parts? What else can be done (fuck that: what else can we do) to make this better?

I have been waiting for this post to happen. There is clearly an escalation of mass shootings.

[ABiCi]

Fixed it for you.

You really are desperate to frame this situation in any way that could distract from the simple fact that if there wasn't a gun involved in the story then no one ends up dead.

Why?

[murphy]

Fixed it for you.

"... is for a one or two teenage boys to walk towards him with one known knifes ...”

Here I fixed it for you since you seem intent on distorting it every time you speak about it. Also I find your use of the racially charged word "thug" troubling. I don't know you. I don't know what your thoughts on race are. But using this word in such a connotation makes you sound racist. Keep in mind I am not calling you racist. Like I said I don't know you. But you do sound like one so please use your words with more care.

[Dallas Tex]

Being a dangerous arsehole at 14......

Participating in a robbery and what was about to become the beating death of a 75 year man, with 5 other criminals, is a lot more than being an ‘arshole’.

[Corso]

You really are desperate to frame this situation in any way that could distract from the simple fact that if there wasn't a gun involved in the story then no one ends up dead.

Why?

Except quite possibly the old man from a knife wound. Or from a beating from being outnumbered.

Do you think the old man knew the age of the person walking towards him with a knife?

In an altercation-age goes out the window. It only "matters" afterwards...

I'm not defending the old man - it appears we're all reacting to a situation we are all lacking details in.

[murphy]

It is not my intent to move goal posts or to distract from the discussion about gun policy in the United States. But since some have voiced concern that this thread is outliving its usefulness, I'd like to augment the discussion with a question. It is asked in good faith, with no agenda, and out of genuine curiosity about how Salonistas feel. If you can't/won't meet me halfway by answering/engaging in good faith, please don't expect the courtesy of a response.

I suspect we will all disagree about the proper allocation of blame between the availability of high-capacity semi-automatic firearms and the organisms who utilize them to slaughter innocents. I further suspect no staunch gun control advocate believes the immediate removal of all guns from all people would result in a year with zero homicides, and that no staunch gun rights advocate believes that, for example, the piece of shit in Las Vegas could have been as lethal with a shotgun designed for skeet shooting instead of a bumpstock-equipped semi-auto (gun owners: do you really believe he could have killed 58 people with an over/under 12 gauge?). [Short sidebar: is there no one willing to praise President Trump's Department of Justice for administratively banning bump stocks?]

That wasn't the question. This is: What is it about modern American society that has contributed to the escalation in both severity and frequency of these attacks?

I AM NOT going all "guns don't kill people, people kill people" on you, I swear. I'm simply noting a timeline: Charles Whitman, then...Columbine? I vaguely remember a McDonald's shooting sometime around (and maybe near) the LA Olympic Games, and there was the North Hollywood Bank shoot-out in 1997* (which is hard to categorize as a mass shooting; 2000 rounds were fired (~650 of those by police), and the only two dead were bank robbers...and I'm glad they aren't with us anymore, and the weapons the robbers used were illegally converted to fully-automatic, i.e. already banned).

So if we say Whitman in '69, McDonald's in CA (if I'm even remembering that correctly) around 1984, Columbine in 1999 - that's really exactly every 15 years. Now it seems these things happen every 15 weeks (or even days). I know there are more Ar-15s in private hands, and by a huge factor, but what has happened to make people (oh, let's just say it: MEN) want to use them?

Tangentially related question: if there were no high-capacity magazines in private hands, would these events be less frequent? I think honest people have to say they'd be less severe (every life matters, but I mean in terms of aggregate carnage). Some guy shot some guy in Richmond today, but you didn't hear about it. Are these nitwits going for high body counts to be newsworthy?




*I attribute the recent (and rapid) "militarization" of police departments to this event, or at least suggest the justification for it began with this event.


Edited to add: I know reforming and enforcing gun laws is part of the solution. What are the other parts? What else can be done (fuck that: what else can we do) to make this better?

I'll play. I don't have all the answers (as I am sure most will be quick to point out about themselves). I can't remember where I read it or heard it (I want to say Freakonomics podcast, but might be wrong), but wherever it was they described guns as introducing uncertainty about the outcome of a fight. In a fist fight with a stronger person, a weaker person knows the outcome and so does not want to start a fight, but if you introduce a gun, there is uncertainty. They might "win" now. I think that uncertainty to some extent has become entrenched in the brains of mostly disaffected young men. (Side note I almost earlier in this thread said we should just allow women access to guns because for the life of me I can only think of about one female shooter who was with her husband/boyfriend so it was more a Bonnie and Clyde situation, but I digress). The disaffected young men have been "fighting" all their lives against bullies or discrimination or whatever and decide to add some uncertainty to that equation. I am probably simplifying things.

I think if we were to limit large capacity mags, the shootings would not be more infrequent, but would indeed have fewer fatalities and casualties which is why I am for limiting the size of magazines. I just want to move the needle. I also don't think this affects the enjoyment of any gun enthusiast since if they are at a range, they can just reload at their leisure, but in a shooting situation, having to reload more often gives more opportunities for intervention or escape.

I also think just like a car, there should be mandatory training and licensing for guns no matter what the provenance. A car has a large destructive capacity and so does a gun. Both need to be respected. If you get a gun because a family member dies I feel like you should have to get a license before you can take possession of it.

Also expanded background checks and all that I am in favor of. I am also in favor of mandatory waiting periods, but for one specific reason which is that men when they commit suicide tend to go for sure fire methods of killing themselves (like guns), but without immediate access to said gun, might have time to rethink their position. They might not rethink it, but it is possible.

Anyways I have said enough though I could say more. I haven't had coffee this morning so I need to go grab that before I can be expected to make a coherent thought (which this might not have been).

[ABiCi]

Except quite possibly the old man from a knife wound. Or from a beating from being outnumbered.

Do you think the old man knew the age of the person walking towards him with a knife?

In an altercation-age goes out the window. It only "matters" afterwards...

I'm not defending the old man - it appears we're all reacting to a situation we are all lacking details in.

If there is no gun involved then there is no direct interaction between him and the thieves and so there is no altercation.