Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Gospel]

Ok, let's look at that. Many gang-related shootings are in public. And this church shooter was deliberately targeting the school, so it was not indiscriminate. So why is this a legitimate "mass shooting" and, say, shooting up a party full of teens in Douglasville is not?

If the school itself had been the target, arson or vandalism might have made sense. But that wasn’t the case, the shooter wasn’t attacking a building, they were attacking the people inside. Even if someone had an issue with the institution, the act was indiscriminate: the students and staff are individuals who merely attend the school, not embodiments of it. And they weren’t treated as individuals. The shooter didn’t single anyone out; he opened fire on multiple people without distinction. That’s the key difference between gang violence that sometimes leaves multiple casualties and a mass shooting like Pulse or Sandy Hook, where the motive is to kill as many random people as possible. The outcomes may look similar, lives lost, families shattered, communities devastated, but the motives and intent are not the same. Gang-related shootings occur more often and have claimed way too many bystanders, but when the purpose is indiscriminate mass killing, the motive changes everything, especially when it comes to how we as a society discuss how to address the root causes.

I hate to say it, but if gang members set out with the goal of killing as many people as possible on site during a shootout, the body count would be far higher than what we currently see. WAY HIGHER.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

These events are about anger, rage at the world and wanting to make a point, leave the world with a scar they made. In a civilized world, we'd tend to want to restrict their access to weapons. Your solution is more like you want to rewrite history and pretend it didn't happen so that hopefully we don't have to pretend it didn't happen in the future.

Most shooters are of an age to have access to cars.

If they see mass shootings barely get a mention they'll see that it still leaves them an unknown, thus removes most of the reason for it.

The main reason is anger and rage, isolation. Desire to no longer live. All of that still exists. It'll be hard to kill off the media seeing that the death of children is considered very bad and results in news.

It won't remove the reason for suicide, but if you deny them the ability to leave a mark via mass shooting they'll be less likely to take that route.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's not how it works. Remember, guns are a means, not an end. Remove guns, some of those murders will still happen, just by other means. With domestics the murderer generally has the access and the strength to kill by other means. Why would you not expect most of it to be displaced?

It's like putting a bank door on your front door while leaving the windows unprotected.

For the bolded part, could you at least consult your crystal ball and show us a screenshot of the ‘evidence’? Every time, your pulled-from-thin-air opinions derail the conversation away from actual data and into your unfounded premonitions and feel-good guesses the discussion goes nowhere.

I can't imagine how what you are pointing to is remotely a matter of dispute. Reality reacts to changes, you can't just remove one path and assume everyone who took that path will simply stop. Does the city grind to a halt when one street is closed? Removing the easiest path will stop some people, it will never stop all of them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I hate to say it, but if gang members set out with the goal of killing as many people as possible on site during a shootout, the body count would be far higher than what we currently see. WAY HIGHER.

While I agree with your general point you're making a mistake here--even if shooting others was a goal things would play out about how they do because in a shootout the threat is from the other side, they're going to be shooting at the people shooting at them. Even if shooting bystanders is a secondary objective 100% of their focus is going to be on the primary objective so long as a threat exists.

 

[bilby]

Does the city grind to a halt when one street is closed?

Yup. Been there, done that, sat in the queue of three hundred buses.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Does the city grind to a halt when one street is closed?

Yup. Been there, done that, sat in the queue of three hundred buses.

Buses aren't just allowed to detour like drivers.

 

[bilby]

Does the city grind to a halt when one street is closed?

Yup. Been there, done that, sat in the queue of three hundred buses.

Buses aren't just allowed to detour like drivers.

The entire city was at a standstill. Nobody was doing any detours, because all the detours were jammed as soon as anyone thought of them.

And detours are absolutely routine in bus operations. The difference is that we have highly experienced drivers with encyclopaedic knowledge of the city, who have access to a control centre with real time feeds from hundreds of traffic cameras, and with radio reports from hundreds of drivers, so that our detours are based on reason and strategy, and not on blind hope and stupidity. So when we detour, it usually works - unless the obstruction is in a particularly critical location, at a particularly critical time.

You may have been using the phrase "the city grind to a halt" figuratively; But I mean it literally. The entire CBD, plus all of the roads feeding into it, ground to a halt when a sinkhole was discovered under the Adelaide and George Street intersection an hour before morning peak. Gridlock developed faster than the cops could prevent it, despite the best efforts of officers on motorcycles and on foot, (who were eventually the critical tool to unpick the mess, and to prevent it from recurring).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

These events are about anger, rage at the world and wanting to make a point, leave the world with a scar they made. In a civilized world, we'd tend to want to restrict their access to weapons. Your solution is more like you want to rewrite history and pretend it didn't happen so that hopefully we don't have to pretend it didn't happen in the future.

Most shooters are of an age to have access to cars.

Yes they do... and cars are ineffective at mass scale killings, especially indoors.

If they see mass shootings barely get a mention they'll see that it still leaves them an unknown, thus removes most of the reason for it.

The main reason is anger and rage, isolation. Desire to no longer live. All of that still exists. It'll be hard to kill off the media seeing that the death of children is considered very bad and results in news.

It won't remove the reason for suicide, but if you deny them the ability to leave a mark via mass shooting they'll be less likely to take that route.

Deny them the ability to leave a mark... but in conjunction with needing to legally require people to sell them weapons to murder people.

Reporter: Mr. President, what are we going to do about preventing another 9/11?
President: Well simple, if we don't report what happened, terrorists will be less likely to commit acts of terrorism. Really, this is all the press's fault.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And detours are absolutely routine in bus operations. The difference is that we have highly experienced drivers with encyclopaedic knowledge of the city, who have access to a control centre with real time feeds from hundreds of traffic cameras, and with radio reports from hundreds of drivers, so that our detours are based on reason and strategy, and not on blind hope and stupidity. So when we detour, it usually works - unless the obstruction is in a particularly critical location, at a particularly critical time.

The thing is you have passengers expecting the bus to be at a certain place. You detour, you leave people behind.

You may have been using the phrase "the city grind to a halt" figuratively; But I mean it literally. The entire CBD, plus all of the roads feeding into it, ground to a halt when a sinkhole was discovered under the Adelaide and George Street intersection an hour before morning peak. Gridlock developed faster than the cops could prevent it, despite the best efforts of officers on motorcycles and on foot, (who were eventually the critical tool to unpick the mess, and to prevent it from recurring).

That's a very extreme case. Normally a city doesn't gridlock like that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

These events are about anger, rage at the world and wanting to make a point, leave the world with a scar they made. In a civilized world, we'd tend to want to restrict their access to weapons. Your solution is more like you want to rewrite history and pretend it didn't happen so that hopefully we don't have to pretend it didn't happen in the future.

Most shooters are of an age to have access to cars.

Yes they do... and cars are ineffective at mass scale killings, especially indoors.

The Islamists in Europe manage to rack up scores often higher than our mass shooters.

If they see mass shootings barely get a mention they'll see that it still leaves them an unknown, thus removes most of the reason for it.

The main reason is anger and rage, isolation. Desire to no longer live. All of that still exists. It'll be hard to kill off the media seeing that the death of children is considered very bad and results in news.

It won't remove the reason for suicide, but if you deny them the ability to leave a mark via mass shooting they'll be less likely to take that route.

Deny them the ability to leave a mark... but in conjunction with needing to legally require people to sell them weapons to murder people.

Reporter: Mr. President, what are we going to do about preventing another 9/11?
President: Well simple, if we don't report what happened, terrorists will be less likely to commit acts of terrorism. Really, this is all the press's fault.

- NO NOTORIETY

No Name. No Photo. No Notoriety. IT’S A MATTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY The quest for notoriety and infamy is a well known motivating factor in rampage mass killings and violent copycat crimes. In an effort to reduce future tragedies, we CHALLENGE THE MEDIA – calling for RESPONSIBLE MEDIA COVERAGE FOR...

nonotoriety.com

 

[bilby]

The thing is you have passengers expecting the bus to be at a certain place. You detour, you leave people behind.

The thing is, you have Translink officers and mobile Bus Operations units who can (and do) go to the stops that are being bypassed, and advise people of the new pick-up point. Which is these days also made available in real time on the Translink app and website.

And the really big thing is, you appear to be trying to tell me about how my job works; And you are getting a lot of the details wrong, because you aren't intimately involved with the job, while I am explicitly paid to be up to speed on all these behind the scenes details.

And oddly enough, the people who do this for a living have put a lot of effort into developing ways to respond to abnormal situations; We aren't all just sitting around waiting for some guy on the Internet to identify and bemoan the problems - we are proactive in anticipating difficulties and developing emergency procedures and protocols to manage them when they arise.

The smart move, when discussing any job with someone who actually does that job, would be to ask, rather than trying to tell; That way, you can learn without coming across as an ignorant fool.

 

[bilby]

That's a very extreme case. Normally a city doesn't gridlock like that.

Yup. But occasionally, it does. It just takes exactly the wrong set of circumstances.

 

[Patooka]

Most shooters are of an age to have access to cars.

Has that bullshit thoroughly debunked argument *ever* worked?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Most shooters are of an age to have access to cars.

Has that bullshit thoroughly debunked argument *ever* worked?

Debunked how? The Islamists in Europe manage to rack up higher scores with ramming attacks than our mass shooters. They're pretty much limited to people near streets but in dense areas there are lots of those.

 

[laughing dog]

Most shooters are of an age to have access to cars.

Has that bullshit thoroughly debunked argument *ever* worked?

Debunked how? The Islamists in Europe manage to rack up higher scores with ramming attacks than our mass shooters. They're pretty much limited to people near streets but in dense areas there are lots of those.

Are you seriously arguing that if the automatic weapons are banned, that potential mass shooters in the USA will simply use vehicles to ram into school yards, buildings, and other places?

Your claim lacks actual comparable evidence on numbers and frequency of attacks to make it testable, More importantly, the thread is about school shooting which tend to occur INSIDE BUILDINGS which are not usually easily accessible by vehicles.

 

[Patooka]

Most shooters are of an age to have access to cars.

Has that bullshit thoroughly debunked argument *ever* worked?

Debunked how? The Islamists in Europe manage to rack up higher scores with ramming attacks than our mass shooters. They're pretty much limited to people near streets but in dense areas there are lots of those.

Never heard of a ramming raid killing over 30 people. Care to back that up?
Also never heard of a single year in a single country where deliberate vehicular homicide surpassed gun deaths. Care to back that up?
But here's a very simple counter argument - most militaries don't equip their troops with fucking Honda Civics.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Most shooters are of an age to have access to cars.

Has that bullshit thoroughly debunked argument *ever* worked?

Debunked how? The Islamists in Europe manage to rack up higher scores with ramming attacks than our mass shooters. They're pretty much limited to people near streets but in dense areas there are lots of those.

Are you seriously arguing that if the automatic weapons are banned, that potential mass shooters in the USA will simply use vehicles to ram into school yards, buildings, and other places?

Your claim lacks actual comparable evidence on numbers and frequency of attacks to make it testable, More importantly, the thread is about school shooting which tend to occur INSIDE BUILDINGS which are not usually easily accessible by vehicles.

Can you pay a bit of attention to the truth???

We have a total of two crimes committed with legal automatic weapons. One was an attack on property (shot up his ex's parked car), one was recklessness (letting someone handle an automatic weapon that wasn't able to control it, sending a round into the sky that came down in the wrong spot. And you could count the kid that inadvertently killed themselves because they couldn't control an automatic weapon, but I do not believe that charges were filed.

No mass shooter has ever had a legally obtained automatic weapon.

You have fallen for the standard deception around "assault" weapons. A real assault weapon is a select-fire capable carbine. What are called "assault weapons" by the gun-banners are look-alikes lacking select-fire capability It's about looks, about trying to chip away at something they can portray as not worthy of protection. (Look at abortion to see what they're doing, all the same tactics. "Assault weapon" corresponds to "D&X".) In practice, "assault" weapons are used in fewer murders than punching/kicking. (And reality is even lower, the FBI uses actual categories. Handgun (one hand operation)/shotgun (smoothbore, normally pellets, although capable of firing slugs)/rifle (two hands, rifled barrel). Being a fake category they don't have a separate listing for "assault weapons", they're just part of rifles.)

And while shootings are usually inside there are often groups of kids outside. What about plowing through the crowds lined up to get on the buses?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Most shooters are of an age to have access to cars.

Has that bullshit thoroughly debunked argument *ever* worked?

Debunked how? The Islamists in Europe manage to rack up higher scores with ramming attacks than our mass shooters. They're pretty much limited to people near streets but in dense areas there are lots of those.

Never heard of a ramming raid killing over 30 people. Care to back that up?
Also never heard of a single year in a single country where deliberate vehicular homicide surpassed gun deaths. Care to back that up?
But here's a very simple counter argument - most militaries don't equip their troops with fucking Honda Civics.

Most murders are criminal on criminal. They can't legally get guns anyway, so making them illegal won't change that.

Nothing above 30? Record stands at 86:

2016 Nice truck attack - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

vs 58 for the deadliest mass shooting (Las Vegas.)

 

[laughing dog]

Most shooters are of an age to have access to cars.

Has that bullshit thoroughly debunked argument *ever* worked?

Debunked how? The Islamists in Europe manage to rack up higher scores with ramming attacks than our mass shooters. They're pretty much limited to people near streets but in dense areas there are lots of those.

Are you seriously arguing that if the automatic weapons are banned, that potential mass shooters in the USA will simply use vehicles to ram into school yards, buildings, and other places?

Your claim lacks actual comparable evidence on numbers and frequency of attacks to make it testable, More importantly, the thread is about school shooting which tend to occur INSIDE BUILDINGS which are not usually easily accessible by vehicles.

Can you pay a bit of attention to the truth???

We have a total of two crimes committed with legal automatic weapons. One was an attack on property (shot up his ex's parked car), one was recklessness (letting someone handle an automatic weapon that wasn't able to control it, sending a round into the sky that came down in the wrong spot. And you could count the kid that inadvertently killed themselves because they couldn't control an automatic weapon, but I do not believe that charges were filed.

No mass shooter has ever had a legally obtained automatic weapon.

You have fallen for the standard deception around "assault" weapons. A real assault weapon is a select-fire capable carbine. What are called "assault weapons" by the gun-banners are look-alikes lacking select-fire capability It's about looks, about trying to chip away at something they can portray as not worthy of protection. (Look at abortion to see what they're doing, all the same tactics. "Assault weapon" corresponds to "D&X".) In practice, "assault" weapons are used in fewer murders than punching/kicking. (And reality is even lower, the FBI uses actual categories. Handgun (one hand operation)/shotgun (smoothbore, normally pellets, although capable of firing slugs)/rifle (two hands, rifled barrel). Being a fake category they don't have a separate listing for "assault weapons", they're just part of rifles.)

And while shootings are usually inside there are often groups of kids outside. What about plowing through the crowds lined up to get on the buses?

The thread is about mass shootings in schools tend to occur inside buildings or enclosed playgrounds. Arguing that potential mass killers will use vehicles at schools if they cannot get automatic weapons is insane.

Instead of wasting time on insults and straw men, how about substantiating your claims about Islamist terrorists in Europe and checking your fscts? The latest school mass shooter legally obtained his weapons.

 

[Elixir]

If you want to attack our local HS with a vehicle, it has to be a motorcycle. They built the school a few years ago and put in nice looking slate planters at auto-proof intervals separating the parking lot from school grounds. A lifted rock crawler could probably navigate them but otherwise even a sidecar probably won’t fit.