Mass shooting in Buffalo NY. (1 Viewer)

[DaveXA]

I think the issue is we really aren't discussing it. I started to acknowledge that earlier by saying that they "why" this guy decided to kill is more pressing than "how", but then let myself get distracted again.

While it's more pressing, it's also more difficult to unpack. @First Time Poster makes a good start, but we really aren't picking up with it. Even now, I'm not really sure how to move the discussion forward.

There's a couple of dimensions to the problem, the explicit manifestation of racism and white supremacy with this shooting. And the implicit racism and white supremacy baked into assumptions, laws and cultural norms that have sort of permeated in our society over 300 years.

It's extremely difficult because it's nearly impossible to have a frank discussion about this sort of thing without getting defensive.

That makes sense. I think we have to get over our insecurities and tear the bandaid off. But easier said than done. Maybe a separate thread devoted solely to that could sharpen our focus on that so we aren't distracted with the gun debate? I'm willing to start the thread if that's warranted.

 

[brandon8283]

Yes I agree that as things stand, people prefer guns to kill people. This idea that extremists and racists are going to either start holding hands and singing kumbaya or will just sit at home and grumble and not hurt anybody if we ban guns is just ridiculous.

This has been addressed so many times. If you reduce access to guns, you reduce the amount of people that will be killed, because you're reducing access to the most effective killing weapon.

It's not about stopping all homicides. It's about reducing the total number of homicides, which will absolutely happen with a reduction in access to guns.

 

[SystemShock]

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 we have gotten to the point that we are just comparing bombings with shootings, but that really isn't the point. Picking a gun and shooting someone is easier than making a bomb and blowing someone up, sure. But the point is, in the absence of guns, we humans will find a way to kill each other, one on one or en masse. Bombs are just one way of doing it, and while may think they are hard to make, they aren't.

But it doesn't have to be bombs; I can go to any home improvement store or supermarket and for about $50 come out with what I need to make an agent that will severely harm or kill many people.

And whether is guns, bombs, gasses, sabotage, or a hammer to the head, the more we use deadly agents, the better we get at it.

Now, don't get me wrong; I am all for well regulated firearms, they should be, and I do think there are some loop holes that need to be closed. And while "less guns, less shootings" may seem logical... but honestly looking at the evidence and where we are as a society, I don't know if that actually holds water. People will point out to rates of shootings in other countries were guns are highly restricted or even banned, without consideration to those societies and cultures, and what they have endured on their soil.

 

[DaveXA]

I think we have gotten to the point that we are just comparing bombings with shootings, but that really isn't the point. Picking a gun and shooting someone is easier than making a bomb and blowing someone up, sure. But the point is, in the absence of guns, we humans will find a way to kill each other, one on one or en masse. Bombs are just one way of doing it, and while may think they are hard to make, they aren't.

But it doesn't have to be bombs; I can go to any home improvement store or supermarket and for about $50 come out with what I need to make an agent that will severely harm or kill many people.

And whether is guns, bombs, gasses, sabotage, or a hammer to the head, the more we use deadly agents, the better we get at it.

Now, don't get me wrong; I am all for well regulated firearms, they should be, and I do think there are some loop holes that need to be closed. And while "less guns, less shootings" may seem logical... but honestly looking at the evidence and where we are as a society, I don't know if that actually holds water. People will point out to rates of shootings in other countries were guns are highly restricted or even banned, without consideration to those societies and cultures, and what they have endured on their soil.

Don't forget vehicular homicide, which has happened a few times in recent years.

I do think fewer guns will translate to fewer homicides. I've seen some say by as much as 75%, but I tend to think it won't be near that much because there will still be illegally owned guns out there and people will utilize other means. Just not at the same rate as is currently.

 

[St. Widge]

I think the issue is we really aren't discussing it. I started to acknowledge that earlier by saying that they "why" this guy decided to kill is more pressing than "how", but then let myself get distracted again.

While it's more pressing, it's also more difficult to unpack. @First Time Poster makes a good start, but we really aren't picking up with it. Even now, I'm not really sure how to move the discussion forward.

There's a couple of dimensions to the problem, the explicit manifestation of racism and white supremacy with this shooting. And the implicit racism and white supremacy baked into assumptions, laws and cultural norms that have sort of permeated in our society over 300 years.

It's extremely difficult because it's nearly impossible to have a frank discussion about this sort of thing without getting defensive.

I mean, I think part of the issue is that any time anyone brings up the idea that there are cultural reasons that contribute to the homicide rates and mass killings, they tend to get shouted down by constant posts about how it's all about the guns and we have to ban guns which IMO, isn't productive because it won't happen and possibly is less of an issue than the nature of America and American culture. (Not aimed at you as I think you, as always, are willing to reasonably discuss all sides of any issue.) We even get drive by posts from people who are normally very good posters taking cheap shots about how they wouldn't care about any of the nuances if a family member of theirs was shot dead.

And, yes, a major part of that problem is rooted in racism and white supremacy which is unfortunately, at the core of a lot of American culture (and other cultures to be fair). I get why people react like that to any suggestion that we need to focus on root causes of the violence, not the method used for the violence, in that those ideas have often been used as a sword in the political debate by those with a vested interest in no regulation of gun ownership. But, not everyone who discusses those things is being disingenuous or taking a political position.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I mean, I think part of the issue is that any time anyone brings up the idea that there are cultural reasons that contribute to the homicide rates and mass killings, they tend to get shouted down by constant posts about how it's all about the guns and we have to ban guns which IMO, isn't productive because it won't happen and possibly is less of an issue than the nature of America and American culture. (Not aimed at you as I think you, as always, are willing to reasonably discuss all sides of any issue.) We even get drive by posts from people who are normally very good posters taking cheap shots about how they wouldn't care about any of the nuances if a family member of theirs was shot dead.

And, yes, a major part of that problem is rooted in racism and white supremacy which is unfortunately, at the core of a lot of American culture (and other cultures to be fair). I get why people react like that to any suggestion that we need to focus on root causes of the violence, not the method used for the violence, in that those ideas have often been used as a sword in the political debate by those with a vested interest in no regulation of gun ownership. But, not everyone who discusses those things is being disingenuous or taking a political position.

I agree... I don't even consider myself a major gun control guy (I consider myself to be in the soft majority that favors it) but if I were starting a country from scratch, I'd do things like requiring training on an ongoing basis, insurance, licensing, and tracking of ammunition (basically if a bullet you bought gets used in a crime, you have some liability). Basically, I'd treat guns a lot more like cars (I'd argue that in modern day America a car is more essential to your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness than a gun). But I don't think most of those will pass constitutional muster.

I'm also an "AND" guy, not an "OR" guy. I think guns need to be harder to get and more expensive with some way of tracking the bullets used in the commission of a crime. And I think we need to work on controlling the motivations for violence. Solving those would make life better in very tangible ways.

 

[Saint_Ward]

I think we have gotten to the point that we are just comparing bombings with shootings, but that really isn't the point. Picking a gun and shooting someone is easier than making a bomb and blowing someone up, sure. But the point is, in the absence of guns, we humans will find a way to kill each other, one on one or en masse. Bombs are just one way of doing it, and while may think they are hard to make, they aren't.

But it doesn't have to be bombs; I can go to any home improvement store or supermarket and for about $50 come out with what I need to make an agent that will severely harm or kill many people.

And whether is guns, bombs, gasses, sabotage, or a hammer to the head, the more we use deadly agents, the better we get at it.

Now, don't get me wrong; I am all for well regulated firearms, they should be, and I do think there are some loop holes that need to be closed. And while "less guns, less shootings" may seem logical... but honestly looking at the evidence and where we are as a society, I don't know if that actually holds water. People will point out to rates of shootings in other countries were guns are highly restricted or even banned, without consideration to those societies and cultures, and what they have endured on their soil.

I think we basically agree. I'm just pointing out that it would still lower the body counts. Not all the way. And I definitely agree with the societal issues being a huge factor. And there are many different ones.

I'm just too busy lately to flesh this out, but my overall philosophy is that the perfect is the enemy of the good. There are lots of good small measures we could take that would help, but we want this one grand unifying theory to make it a simple thing to change, and it isn't.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I have to disappear for a bit, but I want to go back to the subject that @First Time Poster brought up.

I sense a tremendous amount of fear, in all communities, including white communities, that they will be hurt in a real ways if they become the minority (or are already a minority). Which to me acknowledges that we don't have strong enough rules, procedures and norms to ensure people are not being influenced by biases. So the solution is to strengthen those things.

 

[DCSaints_Fan]

But it doesn't have to be bombs; I can go to any home improvement store or supermarket and for about $50 come out with what I need to make an agent that will severely harm or kill many people.

But people don't for some reason. And I'm not sure what you're getting at with a cheap "agent" you can get for $50 that would be effective when you factor in practical issues like delivery. Bleach plus ammonia will produces chlorine gas which is lethal. Might work in a confined space without ventilation, where people can't move (like maybe a crowded train). This happened in Japan with the sarin gas attacks. But if you read the background on those, there was considerable time and expense in producing the agent, and it hasn't been repeated since.

The Colombine shooters had a bunch of pipe bombs they distributed throughout the school. But all the fatalities were the result of them shooting people. The Boston Marathon bombers only killed three between the two of them

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I think we have gotten to the point that we are just comparing bombings with shootings, but that really isn't the point. Picking a gun and shooting someone is easier than making a bomb and blowing someone up, sure. But the point is, in the absence of guns, we humans will find a way to kill each other, one on one or en masse. Bombs are just one way of doing it, and while may think they are hard to make, they aren't.

But it doesn't have to be bombs; I can go to any home improvement store or supermarket and for about $50 come out with what I need to make an agent that will severely harm or kill many people.

And whether is guns, bombs, gasses, sabotage, or a hammer to the head, the more we use deadly agents, the better we get at it.

Now, don't get me wrong; I am all for well regulated firearms, they should be, and I do think there are some loop holes that need to be closed. And while "less guns, less shootings" may seem logical... but honestly looking at the evidence and where we are as a society, I don't know if that actually holds water. People will point out to rates of shootings in other countries were guns are highly restricted or even banned, without consideration to those societies and cultures, and what they have endured on their soil.

again i think this is an argument of scale - it's not a question of whether 'significantly' reducing gun availability will eliminate homicide (obviously it wouldn't) - but there's no possible way that homicide rates would stay the same if guns suddenly vanished
suicide rates would drop significantly as well
when Australia adopted its gun laws - gun homicides and suicides dropped significantly but the 'non gun' homicide/suicides did not rise accordingly

plus other industrialized countries do not have out homicide rates and our guns account for mostly for the discrepancy - if your argument was sound, Canada, UK, Australia, Germany, et al would have similar homicide rates (with significantly higher knife and pressure cooker rates) and that's not the case

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I have to disappear for a bit, but I want to go back to the subject that @First Time Poster brought up.

I sense a tremendous amount of fear, in all communities, including white communities, that they will be hurt in a real ways if they become the minority (or are already a minority). Which to me acknowledges that we don't have strong enough rules, procedures and norms to ensure people are not being influenced by biases. So the solution is to strengthen those things.

it signals a fear of the reverse golden rule - 'they will do unto me, what i did unto them'
and that's telling

 

[WhoDatPhan78]

Strawman. I'm not saying these individual idiots are using Uzis, or any fully auto weapon. But, if you want to convince yourself that there aren't compounds in the US that don't have a stockpile of these types of weapons, then fine. Do you want to see what a coordinated attack by any of these extremist groups would look like? I know that I don't. Fully auto weapons, armor piercing rounds, shredder shotguns, etc. are all game changers. When anyone talks about banning firearms, you will have to take away their weapons as well as those belonging to law abiding citizens. Strict regulation of firearms will work, to an extent, but there are still illegal types of weapons flowing into the country. And these groups aren't collecting them for target practice or deer hunting.

It's not a strawman. You seem to think that I am suggesting that there is a solution to this problem.

It will never be "solved". We can only do things that would make it better.

I have never suggested that we could ban all firearms either. That would be a strawman.

We will never get rid of hate, but we should do things that make people hate less.

We will never get rid of guns, but we should do things that make them harder to get than they are now.

We need to do about 10 different things that help make the problem better.

We will never eliminate the problem.

 

[DCSaints_Fan]

We aren't manufacturing Uzi's and AK's. Yes, I for one believe that Mexico facilitates a large majority of illegal firearms found in the US.

Those are legal in the US, at least if they were produced prior to 1986 or if they get rid of the full-auto setting, like with certain models of the AK-47.

 

[SystemShock]

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?

I think that misses the point. As I said earlier, the point is not comparing how easy the process to kill someone with a gun is, vis a vis a bomb. The point is, if you remove one killing tool, there are many others available that are not being used at the same rate as guns are used today. Would it be as easy to use a method other than firearms in the immediate future? Unlikely. Would we get better at it with time? Absolutely.

The idea that less guns = less shootings, I used to think it was a valid claim, but I don't think it holds water anymore. How much less is "less"? You posted statistics from 2020, showing that 19,000 people were killed with firearms. That same year, ~ 40,000,000 firearms were legally purchased in the U.S., adding to the estimated ~500,000,000 firearms floating around the U.S., which makes the ratio of shooting deaths vis a vis number of firearms insignificant ( I do get it is not insignificant to the people who were gunned down or their relatives).

As for regulations, again, I am all for regulations, heavy regulations at that; but the way I look at any regulation/law, while they may prevent some from doing certain acts (premeditated mostly, heat of the moment is another thing), I see them more as means of punishment, not prevention.