Yet another shooting thread

[Shadowy Man]

It's the part where they take as many people with them when they go that could be an avoidable part of the equation..

Driving a loaded U-haul into a crowd will generally kill more.

And yet these people don't do that. They seek out an AR-15 so they can kill people through mass shooting. That tells me it's not just about the mass death. They must find something personally satisfying about using a *gun* to kill.

 

[ZiprHead]

It's the part where they take as many people with them when they go that could be an avoidable part of the equation..

Driving a loaded U-haul into a crowd will generally kill more.

And yet these people don't do that. They seek out an AR-15 so they can kill people through mass shooting. That tells me it's not just about the mass death. They must find something personally satisfying about using a *gun* to kill.

The emotional and psychological effects of having an extremely effective killing machine in one's hands continues to be downplayed by the gun nuts.

 

[Elixir]

The emotional and psychological effects of having an extremely effective killing machine in one's hands continues to be downplayed by the gun nuts.

That alone is telling.

It’s one thing to know you can kill “a bunch of people” and another to know you can kill anyone you can see. It’s a personal power trip. RW politicians are of similar ilk, but are placated with vast power and grifting opportunities. They are disinclined to talk about it, they don’t have to talk about it, they’re not going to talk about it and besides, Hunter Crime Family Biden impeachment blah blah blah

 

[bilby]

The argument in a nutshell:

It's pointless to confiscate guns, because there are loads of other ways to kill people; And it's also unacceptable to confiscate guns, because that would deprive us of any means to kill people.

Hmmm.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The argument in a nutshell:

It's pointless to confiscate guns, because there are loads of other ways to kill people; And it's also unacceptable to confiscate guns, because that would deprive us of any means to kill people.

Hmmm.

If the Maine shooter didn't have easy access to an assault weapon he would have been forced to use chemical or biological agents or atomic bombs or poisons. So having easy access to assault weapons probably saved millions of lives because he didn't have to use something more deadly.

 

[Derec]

If the Maine shooter didn't have easy access to an assault weapon he would have been forced to use chemical or biological agents or atomic bombs or poisons. So having easy access to assault weapons probably saved millions of lives because he didn't have to use something more deadly.

Or he could have just used a Glock. Don't tell me a trained shooter could not have killed 18 indoors with a handgun.
Of course this will not stop Dems from pursuing the completely ineffective "assault weapons ban" while ignoring more effective gun control measures.

 

[bilby]

If the Maine shooter didn't have easy access to an assault weapon he would have been forced to use chemical or biological agents or atomic bombs or poisons. So having easy access to assault weapons probably saved millions of lives because he didn't have to use something more deadly.

Or he could have just used a Glock. Don't tell me a trained shooter could not have killed 18 indoors with a handgun.
Of course this will not stop Dems from pursuing the completely ineffective "assault weapons ban" while ignoring more effective gun control measures.

...like also restricting the availability of Glocks.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Driving a loaded U-haul into a crowd will generally kill more.

That's why we require licenses to drive trucks, and enforce relatively strict rules about how and when they are driven.

Most people have the required license. I'm talking a 27' U-Haul, not a big rig.

And most mass shooters are suicides. Rules don't matter.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's the part where they take as many people with them when they go that could be an avoidable part of the equation..

Driving a loaded U-haul into a crowd will generally kill more.

Not in a bowling alley.

True, the targets would be different. I'm just saying the death toll of driving a loaded truck into a crowd is going to be higher than a typical mass shooter.

That is wonderful. Oddly, not too many are using trucks to kill people. In fact the most infamous of truck usage was an a bomb in an attempt to topple the WTC towers.

Because the culture here says "gun". IS was teaching truck-ramming as an attack technique in Europe.

I would note that trucks are almost never, like mile per mile, used to run people over and they provide a viable benefit to society and our economy.

For most people a truck is cheaper and easier to obtain than a gun.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If the Maine shooter didn't have easy access to an assault weapon he would have been forced to use chemical or biological agents or atomic bombs or poisons. So having easy access to assault weapons probably saved millions of lives because he didn't have to use something more deadly.

Or he could have just used a Glock. Don't tell me a trained shooter could not have killed 18 indoors with a handgun.

We're fucked when the trained shooters start targeting people. Is the reason we need to allow certain weapons to be available in the hands of Americans is trained gunman could always kill more with less? And that heavy vans would kill more people?

Of course this will not stop Dems from pursuing the completely ineffective "assault weapons ban" while ignoring more effective gun control measures.

There are no more effective gun control measures. Our streets are saturated with excessively dangerous guns. Yeah, we should at least try to keep suicidal people from getting guns, but even if we try that, we hear the whimpers of the gun lobby... which oddly is much louder than the sobs of the families that lost loved ones at a fucking bowling alley.

The good news, however, is that every bullet that was fired into the latest mass murder scene victims, the gun shop owner got paid... and the so did the arms manufacturer. Dog bless America!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If only we could take reasonable and practical measures to prevent such tragedies.

Expensive and they take a fair amount of space that usually doesn't exist. Thus they are rarely used.

I thought “reasonable and practical” would have covered that,,,

The two are not equivalent in so many other ways.

When you don't have enough extra space between the road and the buildings it's rare you could put such things. And it's exactly those areas that provide the biggest targets for rammers. Look towards the tall buildings in whatever city you're in--you'll almost certainly find there isn't enough space to put in bollards. And there are often considerable numbers of people walking around.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You’ll need to expand a bit on what “minimize media coverage” means here, because it sounds a lot like you’re advocating censorship

What I would like to see is that any news outlet would be restricted to covering any given fact about such incidents once a year, other than as needed to provide consistency. You can say it, you just can't keep saying it. They don't get the attention the shooters crave. Give it the sort of coverage that 4 hours of traffic deaths (the equivalent of the Maine shooter) get.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's the part where they take as many people with them when they go that could be an avoidable part of the equation..

Driving a loaded U-haul into a crowd will generally kill more.

Not in a bowling alley.

True, the targets would be different. I'm just saying the death toll of driving a loaded truck into a crowd is going to be higher than a typical mass shooter.

That is wonderful. Oddly, not too many are using trucks to kill people. In fact the most infamous of truck usage was an a bomb in an attempt to topple the WTC towers.

Because the culture here says "gun".

The culture here says gun, because some suicidal and mentally ill teen stole his mommy's gun and murdered over a dozen children in Connecticut... and the US is so fucked up, people were convinced that was all a lie, so they harrassed the families of the slain children. That is why this culture says "gun".

IS was teaching truck-ramming as an attack technique in Europe.

Interesting. Wonder why not "guns". Also, you ever try to dodge a vehicle moving 35 to 40 mph? A bit easier than a bullet.

I would note that trucks are almost never, like mile per mile, used to run people over and they provide a viable benefit to society and our economy.

For most people a truck is cheaper and easier to obtain than a gun.

Yet, America's obsession with guns has made suicidal people go with guns. The image, the power, guns are sexier than trucks. And a lot easier to get into buildings.

I'm not quite certain what your argument is here... I mean other than strawman'ing liberals. You do very little to actually justify the necessity for weapons of ridiculous proportions to be available to the general public. You just say liberals want to ban everything, so fuck them, fuck the people in that bowling alley... they are fodder to freedom.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For most people a truck is cheaper and easier to obtain than a gun.

Yet, America's obsession with guns has made suicidal people go with guns. The image, the power, guns are sexier than trucks. And a lot easier to get into buildings.

I'm not quite certain what your argument is here... I mean other than strawman'ing liberals. You do very little to actually justify the necessity for weapons of ridiculous proportions to be available to the general public. You just say liberals want to ban everything, so fuck them, fuck the people in that bowling alley... they are fodder to freedom.

My point is that if the goal is maximum deaths a gun isn't the right choice.

Guns can be more useful if you want to target something specific that you hate, but if you simply want deaths the truck is probably the best choice.

 

[Millrat]

You’ll need to expand a bit on what “minimize media coverage” means here, because it sounds a lot like you’re advocating censorship

What I would like to see is that any news outlet would be restricted to covering any given fact about such incidents once a year, other than as needed to provide consistency. You can say it, you just can't keep saying it. They don't get the attention the shooters crave. Give it the sort of coverage that 4 hours of traffic deaths (the equivalent of the Maine shooter) get.

It’s bizarre to me, to think that that’s more easily achievable or effective than reforming gun legislation.

 

[Millrat]

For most people a truck is cheaper and easier to obtain than a gun.

Yet, America's obsession with guns has made suicidal people go with guns. The image, the power, guns are sexier than trucks. And a lot easier to get into buildings.

I'm not quite certain what your argument is here... I mean other than strawman'ing liberals. You do very little to actually justify the necessity for weapons of ridiculous proportions to be available to the general public. You just say liberals want to ban everything, so fuck them, fuck the people in that bowling alley... they are fodder to freedom.

My point is that if the goal is maximum deaths a gun isn't the right choice.

Guns can be more useful if you want to target something specific that you hate, but if you simply want deaths the truck is probably the best choice.

Part of the goal for these cowards is they can turn the weapon on themselves at a moment’s notice. Crawling under a rolling Uhaul, not so much.

 

[TV and credit cards]

We all know that even if tomorrow some how they get banded it would take years to get rid of even a small number of the millions out there.

I kinda think this too, although it should never be considered too late.

I have this image in my head (maybe I've seen it somewhere before) of a big courtyard full of people riddled with poverty, despair, crime, greed, stress - and then some unseen hand pours in huge bucket loads of guns into the mix, like adding an important ingredient to a cake.

...and some narrator says "this will make them safer"

No. Place a six month mandatory prison sentence on possession of guns now deemed illegal to own and they will get turned in. Most guns see little to no use. They're not worth going to prison, losing a job, and not being able to pay the bills and take care of family.
I guarantee, 80% of these guns are just collecting doing nothing more than giving some yokel a false sense of security.

It's the part where they take as many people with them when they go that could be an avoidable part of the equation..

Driving a loaded U-haul into a crowd will generally kill more.

Moving van
Piano
Anvil
Gun

All of these items have a main purpose. Only one is to kill. Can you guess which one? Would you outlaw civilian possession of a device who's main purpose is to kill? I would.

 

[Rhea]

If the Maine shooter didn't have easy access to an assault weapon he would have been forced to use chemical or biological agents or atomic bombs or poisons. So having easy access to assault weapons probably saved millions of lives because he didn't have to use something more deadly.

Or he could have just used a Glock. Don't tell me a trained shooter could not have killed 18 indoors with a handgun.
Of course this will not stop Dems from pursuing the completely ineffective "assault weapons ban" while ignoring more effective gun control measures.

And yet, he didn’t use a Glock. Something that is less expensive and easier to hide. He didn’t choose that. why?

My guess, Glocks don’t have enough magazine capacity to suit him. And before you say whatever you’re about to say, make youy you run it past, “so why diudn’t he use that?” Because something about the AR15 was part of the draw for him.

For most people a truck is cheaper and easier to obtain than a gun.

And yet people aren’t using them that way. Do you have an excuse for why this man didn’t just use a truck, if it’s EASIER and CHEAPER? And before you say whatever you’re about to say, make youy you run it past, “so why didn’t he use that?” Because something about the AR15 was part of the draw for him to kill a whole lot of people.

When you don't have enough extra space between the road and the buildings it's rare you could put such things. And it's exactly those areas that provide the biggest targets for rammers. Look towards the tall buildings in whatever city you're in--you'll almost certainly find there isn't enough space to put in bollards. And there are often considerable numbers of people walking around.

If there’s not enough space to put a bollard, then how many people will you be able to kill, anyway?
But either way, so then why aren’t killers just doing that easy thing? And before you say whatever you’re about to say, make youy you run it past, “so why didn’t he use that?” Because something about the AR15 was part of the draw for him.

What I would like to see is that any news outlet would be restricted to covering any given fact about such incidents once a year, other than as needed to provide consistency. You can say it, you just can't keep saying it. They don't get the attention the shooters crave. Give it the sort of coverage that 4 hours of traffic deaths (the equivalent of the Maine shooter) get.

Right! Hey Maine people, there’s an armed killer on the loose! We’ll give an update next year.

My point is that if the goal is maximum deaths a gun isn't the right choice.

Guns can be more useful if you want to target something specific that you hate, but if you simply want deaths the truck is probably the best choice.

Well there you go then. A restriction on AR15s will mean fewer lethally vindictive rage fests with specific targets re likely to occur in the US. Sign me up.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

For most people a truck is cheaper and easier to obtain than a gun.

Yet, America's obsession with guns has made suicidal people go with guns. The image, the power, guns are sexier than trucks. And a lot easier to get into buildings.

I'm not quite certain what your argument is here... I mean other than strawman'ing liberals. You do very little to actually justify the necessity for weapons of ridiculous proportions to be available to the general public. You just say liberals want to ban everything, so fuck them, fuck the people in that bowling alley... they are fodder to freedom.

My point is that if the goal is maximum deaths a gun isn't the right choice.

Guns can be more useful if you want to target something specific that you hate, but if you simply want deaths the truck is probably the best choice.

Why in the heck are you arguing about utility in a conversation about gun usage in actual mass murders, something that has become normalized in our culture?

 

[Worldtraveller]

Because, as always, LP wants to change the subject to how stupid his argument is to derail from the real conversation that needs to happen. Sadly, it often works.