Mass shooting in Buffalo NY. (1 Viewer)

[nolaswede]

This might be what we need!

 

[Saint_Ward]

How many of those bombings were meant to kill people?

Also, no internet in the 1970's to learn how to do stuff. You had to find a copy of the Anarchist Cookbook.

Also not in the 1970's, 3D printers.

I don't know, but it was directed at this statement (below), that gave nothing to back it.

Saying that it wouldn't be as bad because a homemade bomb wouldn't do as much damage IN THIS SITUATION is a bit obtuse. People have used small homemade bombs on American soil before and they did just as much of not more damage. You don't use the same tactics for a pressure cooker bomb

Even the Unabomber only killed 3 people. The Vegas shooting in 2017 killed 60 and had ~411 injured. Only the OKC Bombing has bigger numbers (168 dead, over 680 injured)

I'm not even saying we should get rid of all guns. I'm just saying, to think that just because people may have the urge/need to kill, or be mentally unstable, to think we will have a rash of bombings and other, far more difficult, attacks and that they will have the same body counts, is just not logical.

Possible, sure. Probable, no.

I guarantee there will be more compared to now. They'll be a lot more stabbings, beatings, etc. But, There won't be 20+ body counts too often.

But I do agree that there are other major factors at play. There is too much hate in America. And it's so odd, since overall we're so wealthy, overall. While this case is more unique in motive, I just don't understand the whole fear of being 'replaced'. I mean, aren't we all replaced eventually? Isn't that what kids and grand kids are? our replacements.

 

[FL_Saint]

Yes. Why is it naïve? Are we just forever doomed to gun violence in this country? It just is what it is?

Seems like a very fatalistic idea, if so.

Specifically . . . your thought that a buyback can get illegal guns off the streets. They don't want to turn in their guns. Their guns are worth more in their hands than any buyback. Criminals are going to be criminals. It's already illegal for them to possess a firearm - do you propose to make it more illegal? You can call it fatalistic if you want. Maybe a better term is realistic?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

So, think of any act as a series of milestones that have a probability of success. At any point increasing the difficulty of achieving a particular milestone decreases the probability that the final act will occur.

So, if we think of murder as a particular act, increasing the difficulty to achieve all the milestone steps to achieving the murder will decrease the probability of a successful murder. Spread out over 25,000 murders, reducing the probability of success by 30% will save 7500 lives.

Right now the steps to commit murder is buy a gun, buy ammo, shoot. (well, ok, that's pretty simplified). Those steps are all pretty easy:
1. Buy a gun. Guns are pretty cheap, and easy to find. If i get angry, I can probably get a gun and kill someone in the same day -- legally or illegally. Same if I watch some political commentary, had too many drinks and decided to go out and kill X group that I was just told is ruining my country.
2. Buy ammo. Also easy and relatively cheap. And there's no traceabilty which means if I'm just committing regular homicide or armed robbery, I don't need to worry about someone finding me through my discarded shells.
3. Shoot. Guns are very easy to fire (they are hard to use responsibly or skillfully, but easy to just point and shoot).

Compare to building a bomb. There are more parts to buy, requires patience to research how to do it, more planning to pick a spot that will be trafficked by enough people to make it worthwhile. Etc. They are also woefully inadequate for committing violent crime or killing a specific target, which is what most homicides are.

I don't know what the exact percentage adding more failure points into the gun buying process will do to the overall probability of successful homicide, but almost every aspiring killer chooses a gun to kill people which suggests they find it easier to do their killing with a gun than by other means.

But, I am adamant that any laws or rules must pass constitutional muster, which I honestly don't know what passes and doesn't and why. But I'm becoming even more a bigger believer in process.

The big issue is that even though most Americans favor more restrictions on firearms purchase - they only care about it mildly, while those opposed to it care about it passionately. Even though we had 25,000 homicides last year, which is an abhorrently high murder rate -- it's only like 0.007 percent of the population. Most of us really aren't going to die by homicide, so it's a generalized background fear than a present danger. While those who are against, just really, really love their guns and feel they need them on an every day basis.

 

[Dago]

I don't know, but it was directed at this statement (below), that gave nothing to back it.



Even the Unabomber only killed 3 people. The Vegas shooting in 2017 killed 60 and had ~411 injured. Only the OKC Bombing has bigger numbers (168 dead, over 680 injured)

I'm not even saying we should get rid of all guns. I'm just saying, to think that just because people may have the urge/need to kill, or be mentally unstable, to think we will have a rash of bombings and other, far more difficult, attacks and that they will have the same body counts, is just not logical.

Possible, sure. Probable, no.

I guarantee there will be more compared to now. They'll be a lot more stabbings, beatings, etc. But, There won't be 20+ body counts too often.

But I do agree that there are other major factors at play. There is too much hate in America. And it's so odd, since overall we're so wealthy, overall. While this case is more unique in motive, I just don't understand the whole fear of being 'replaced'. I mean, aren't we all replaced eventually? Isn't that what kids and grand kids are? our replacements.

Or you could use a much more recent example like the Boston Marathon bombing as an example of what a pressure cooker bomb full of bearings can do....you know since I specifically mentioned pressure cooker bombs with bearings and there is a real life example to base it off.

 

[WhoDatPhan78]

Or you could use a much more recent example like the Boston Marathon bombing as an example of what a pressure cooker bomb full of bearings can do....you know since I specifically mentioned pressure cooker bombs with bearings and there is a real life example to base it off.

How many mass shooting have we had in the 10 years since the Boston marathon bombing?

 

[kizzy821]

I don't know, but it was directed at this statement (below), that gave nothing to back it.



Even the Unabomber only killed 3 people. The Vegas shooting in 2017 killed 60 and had ~411 injured. Only the OKC Bombing has bigger numbers (168 dead, over 680 injured)

I'm not even saying we should get rid of all guns. I'm just saying, to think that just because people may have the urge/need to kill, or be mentally unstable, to think we will have a rash of bombings and other, far more difficult, attacks and that they will have the same body counts, is just not logical.

Possible, sure. Probable, no.

I guarantee there will be more compared to now. They'll be a lot more stabbings, beatings, etc. But, There won't be 20+ body counts too often.

But I do agree that there are other major factors at play. There is too much hate in America. And it's so odd, since overall we're so wealthy, overall. While this case is more unique in motive, I just don't understand the whole fear of being 'replaced'. I mean, aren't we all replaced eventually? Isn't that what kids and grand kids are? our replacements.

I think a lot of ills on this earth are due to people believing they're more important than they are. From Karen-ing to bullying to road rage to this.

Yes, there are stupid questions. No, we're not all special. Everyone is not beautiful. Your feelings are not always valid.

There needs to be a balance, but kids need to stop being taught that they're magical and special.

It should make it easier to experience disappointment down the line without lashing out.

We sow specialness, then are flummoxed when someone sets out to preserve it (or to acquire it).

That's one of my half-baked theories.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Or you could use a much more recent example like the Boston Marathon bombing as an example of what a pressure cooker bomb full of bearings can do....you know since I specifically mentioned pressure cooker bombs with bearings and there is a real life example to base it off.

There were 3 deaths in the Boston Marathon bombing. And it was nearly ideal conditions for it -- lots of people all congregated in the same area. It did also cause 17 other people to lose their limbs and injured hundreds... but perfectly ideal conditions and they could only kill 3 people.

And since then, even with that as an example, when people decide they want to kill other people they have almost all chosen to use guns. Which means, they know they can use a pressure cooker bomb to kill people, but instead choose to use guns to kill people. Presumably b/c they find it easier to achieve their objectives with a gun instead of a homemade pressure cooker bomb.

 

[Dago]

How many of those bombings were meant to kill people?

Also, no internet in the 1970's to learn how to do stuff. You had to find a copy of the Anarchist Cookbook.

Also not in the 1970's, 3D printers.

We can't have an honest discourse about it.....too many have double standards of what is evidence and what isn't

 

[Dago]

There were 3 deaths in the Boston Marathon bombing. And it was nearly ideal conditions for it -- lots of people all congregated in the same area. It did also cause 17 other people to lose their limbs and injured hundreds... but perfectly ideal conditions and they could only kill 3 people.

And since then, even with that as an example, when people decide they want to kill other people they have almost all chosen to use guns. Which means, they know they can use a pressure cooker bomb to kill people, but instead choose to use guns to kill people. Presumably b/c they find it easier to achieve their objectives with a gun instead of a homemade pressure cooker bomb.

I'm sure the 100 people wounded and maimed appreciate you pretending like their suffering is insignificant

The point is that they will if firearms aren't available and then you can come in here and advocate banning cooking supplies as well.

 

[Dago]

How many mass shooting have we had in the 10 years since the Boston marathon bombing?

How about you not twist what people are saying into an irrelevant point that nobody has made

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I'm sure the 100 people wounded and maimed appreciate you pretending like their suffering is insignificant

The point is that they will if firearms aren't available and then you can come in here and advocate banning cooking supplies as well.

Is it better to be dead or wounded? Not sure why you felt the need to go all strawman there... I certainly am not saying people being wounded is insignificant. But if you gave me the choice to come out of a mass casualty event wounded or dead, I'll choose being wounded. And the fact of the matter is, the pressure cooker bomb was less effective at killing people than guns are.

I'm not even advocating banning firearms. I am trying to get people to acknowledge that having lots of guns cheaply and readily available make it easier to kill people.

Again, if all these other choices are just as effective as guns, which appears to be your claim, why do people choose to use guns way more to kill people than other choices? By your logic, if a gun was no more effective at killing people than any other choice, then people would be choosing other methods more frequently, but they aren't. Out of the 21,000 homicides in 2020, 19,000 were committed by guns. So, by far people choose to use guns to kill people.

If you want to defend yourself, are you walking around with a pressure cooker?

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I'm sure the 100 people wounded and maimed appreciate you pretending like their suffering is insignificant

The point is that they will if firearms aren't available and then you can come in here and advocate banning cooking supplies as well.

c'mon - Uncle is running circles around y'all and the best you can do is speculate about what could be

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I will concede the point in the instance we're talking here, I think the more prevalent issue is why the person decided to kill in the first place and not the method he chose.