General Mass Shooting Thread (originally Las Vegas Strip)

[bcl05]

As a doc who has spent most of my adult life in a children's hospital, this article broke me a bit. 

 

https://www.newyorker.com/science/annals-of-medicine/waiting-at-a-texas-hospital-for-children-who-never-arrive

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

45 minutes ago, Llevron said:

I understand what you are saying. But I don’t remember any of these guys saying they wanted fake. A few of them said they wanted to spread an ideology, a few were clearly legit crazy, some were just racist. I don’t remember a single one saying they wanted infamy. 
 

To your plaint about Columbine, I am old enough to remember the footage. I remember being confused. I don’t not remember the people responsible at all. Not a name not a face nothing. And the people shooting up schools and grocery stores in black neighborhoods right now are decades younger than I am. I bet they don’t either. Children have very little respect for history as is. So I doubt they hold the infamy those guys received in any regard either. 
 

I just think it’s silly to assume the media attention has much at all to do with it when compared to all the other factors we know and have statistics to prove had an effect. I can’t say that you are wrong…..Republicans won’t even allow the government to commission a study on it…..but I don’t think it’s really measurable compared to all the other things. And most of all I think it plays into Republican talking points that just drive us into further inaction. Which is probably the biggest reason I dislike the argument if I’m being honest. 
 

So who knows, really. I hate all of this ****. I’m just happy you think this deeply about it. I wish everyone did. Kinda makes me really sad just talking about it. 

 

I don't think they're actively SAYING they want fame.  But their actions say otherwise.  Maybe fame was a bad word to use.  Notoriety might be better.  

 

We agree, it's not measurable.  But look at the Buffalo shopping market shooter.  That dude clearly had an agenda.  And while he might not care about his name being known necessarily, he certainly wanted to spread his message.  

 

And the media did it for him without blinking an eye.  We're two years post George Floyd, there's a lot of racial tension and then that guy went ahead and did THAT.  And then they talked about his message, his manifesto, etc, which brought up a lot of sorrow, outrage and reminded us of where we are and how bad it can be.

 

But I'm willing to bet that it also emboldened some other racist asshole who wants to do the same thing, just might be nervous about doing it.  Maybe that other guy feels that he should do something like that.  At the very least it's telling a bunch of people that it's okay to have those feelings, to think that way.  Silently cheering that guy on for doing what he did.  That guy, unfortunately, is a HERO to a certain segment of the population and he got his message out there.

 

So maybe that's not fame, maybe that's not notoriety, but it is spreading a message.  How do you measure it?  Not sure.  

 

But the media spreads it for them, for sure.  BECAUSE WE ALL NEED TO KNOW WHY.  And I'm not saying I'm above it either, I usually doomscroll through Twitter a few times a day.  I keep up on the threads in here.  I look for why these people do these things, too.  

 

However, is the fallout from spreading that message that a few people nod and agree?  Start planning their own similar shooting?  

 

I guess a different question would be...what would the cost be of not naming the Buffalo shooter?  What would the cost be of not describing his manifesto?  You could still cover what happened and say that it happened in a heavily populated African American area, people could draw their own conclusions for that.   

 

I dunno.  When I heard that he had a manifesto and what it included, "the great replacement theory," etc.  I just immediately thought about all the people who agree with it, who are nodding their heads silently and, more importantly, who out there is inching closer to do the same thing.  

 

Again, I'm not saying I'm above not wanting to know these things, too.  I just think the media inadvertently does a fantastic job of giving these people a platform that they desperately seek.  

 

To your point, I agree it's hard to measure.  It's hard to figure out how much of the constant reporting and analyzing and talking about these things influences other events.  And the flip side of it, NOT talking about it...I dunno, that's probably just as bad, too.  

 

I hate all this **** for sure, too.  But the conversations on here are interesting, thought provoking, for sure.  

 

[Dan T.]

It gets old to see "the media" blamed for doing their ****ing jobs.

[CapsSkins]

1 hour ago, michiskin said:

For the longest time, I figured most cops would get it harm's way to help people when they were in danger.

 

Then I figured out that was a lot more likely if you were of the Caucasian persuasion, such as myself.

 

Now I feel like they are mostly out there to protect their own asses. They shoot people dead when they feel the slightest amount of discomfort for their own safety and now fail to rush in when they could save children's lives.

 

These busters need to have their sweet early retirement ages bumped way up and their salaries bumped way down. If they aren't willing to lay it out on the line for the taxpayers who pay them, they don't deserve any of those sweet bennies. Since 9/11, cops have benefited from the hype that they are above reproach and they've bought into it.

 

My wife used to work dispatch for a university police department, and the officers all acted like frat boys. They would actually text pictures of their dumps to each other, comment on the coeds walking outside, etc. Douchebags. 

 

Not to cast aspersions and not to say academics are the end-all be-all, but it ain't the Honor Roll students lining up to join the Academy after graduation. 

[visionary]

 

 

[@DCGoldPants]

18 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

I think he means he's livid this is still a story a few days later. 

[Dan T.]

 

[Dan T.]

 

[steve09ru]

1 hour ago, Dan T. said:

It gets old to see "the media" blamed for doing their ****ing jobs.

Eh, goes both ways.  See a lot of instances where they are quick to get a story out and botch the details early on.  I understand they are provided information during early accounts of events but phrasing of it has gone down hill and there’s no accountability on the media side for potential damage done from that.  Tough for sure and the social media age doesn’t help at all where unverified people can post any random thing and it get picked up by national media as a source of truth

[China]

 

[mistertim]

2 hours ago, China said:

 

 

Waiting now for Ted Cruz to bemoan little kids "politicizing" this.

[Redskins Diehard]

28 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Waiting now for Ted Cruz to bemoan little kids "politicizing" this.

And the thing is... politicians are best positioned to do something proactive about this. Everyone else is reacting. Police, medics, doctors. All forced to react. ****ing politicians could play the hero by doing something, anything, to make it even a little more difficult to get the equipment needed to inflict mass casualties on people going about their lives

[skinsmarydu]

11 minutes ago, Redskins Diehard said:

And the thing is... politicians are best positioned to do something proactive about this. Everyone else is reacting. Police, medics, doctors. All forced to react. ****ing politicians could play the hero by doing something, anything, to make it even a little more difficult to get the equipment needed to inflict mass casualties on people going about their lives

I've known the owner of the Ace Hardware next to my restaurant for decades.  We're good friends, been through a lot, and we talk about it all pretty frequently since he and his son (that I've known since before he could walk) eat there a lot.  They have a digital sign up by the street that advertises...one thing that flashes is WE HAVE AMMO. 

If I ask him to take it off, I'd bet he won't argue. 

 

 

 

Edited May 27, 2022 by skinsmarydu
syntax

[China]

 

[spjunkies]

 

 

[China]

Research shows policies that may help prevent mass shootings — and some that don't

 

Every mass shooting in the U.S. raises calls for better policies to prevent such tragedies. There's evidence suggesting that certain kinds of laws may reduce deaths from mass shootings, say scientists who study the field — but those policy options are not the ones usually discussed in the wake of these events.

 

The body of research scientists have to draw from is limited, notes Michael Anestis, executive director of the New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center at Rutgers University. "Mass shooting research is a very small portion of gun violence research," he says.

 

That's because mass shootings account for less than 1% of the roughly 40,000 people killed by guns each year in this country, Anestis explains. "They're horrific, they are all too common, and yet, it's just the very tip of the iceberg, right?"

 

Those researchers who do study gun violence tend to focus on the kinds of violence, like suicide, associated with the most deaths, he says. But, he adds, the entire field of gun violence research has long been neglected and hardly funded.

 

Still, some studies have findings about what might prevent mass shootings.

 

One such study took advantage of the fact that in the U.S., gun laws vary from state to state. "That is, honestly, less than ideal from a public safety standpoint, but it does provide researchers with opportunities," says Daniel Webster, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions.

 

He and some colleagues recently analyzed more than 30 years of data on shootings in the U.S. that involved four or more victims. They compared states to try to tease out the effect of various gun laws. "I have to acknowledge that this is a really hard and, frankly, inexact science," says Webster.

 

Despite those limitations, he says, "We did find two policies that had significant protective effects in lowering rates of fatal mass shootings."

 

One was a requirement that a gun purchaser go through a licensing process. "A licensing process requires someone to, you know, directly apply and engage with law enforcement, sometimes there's safety training and other requirements," says Webster.

 

Another approach that seemed to reduce deaths from mass shootings was state bans on buying large-capacity magazines or ammunition-feeding devices for semiautomatic weapons.

 

Click on the link full article

[Destino]

 

worth reading the thread.  They did not follow their own training which called for even a single officer to confront the shooter immediately.  If an officer is shot, then other officers are to proceed confronting the shooter even if they have to go alone.  What they did instead is by now, well understood.

 

They failed their community, and the one higher ranked cop that they have trotted out to fall on his sword falls short of explaining the failure.  The first cops on scene should have immediately rushed in.  They did not.

[Destino]

This design would be shot down by republicans for having too many entrances.  

 

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

Your thoughts on this? 

 

 

Edited May 28, 2022 by d0ublestr0ker0ll

[Burgold]

1 hour ago, d0ublestr0ker0ll said:

Your thoughts on this? 

 

 

A license system has always made sense to me. 

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

33 minutes ago, Burgold said:

A license system has always made sense to me. 

 

The only thing I think needs to be emphasized, is hiding the keys.  If your Dad has an AR, and a kid gets an idea to lash out, he can't get to it because of X, Y, Z.  

[Burgold]

40 minutes ago, d0ublestr0ker0ll said:

 

The only thing I think needs to be emphasized, is hiding the keys.  If your Dad has an AR, and a kid gets an idea to lash out, he can't get to it because of X, Y, Z.  

Sure, but that's true of driver's licenses, too. Kids joy riding is always a risk, but drivers licenses, seat belts, etc. have by and large worked.

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

3 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Sure, but that's true of driver's licenses, too. Kids joy riding is always a risk, but drivers licenses, seat belts, etc. have by and large worked.

 

On the scale of mass shootings though, the instances of a kid stealing their parent's car isn't a car accident....it's a mass shooting.

 

How do you scan a person for being able to lock their combat gear away 100% of the time?

[GoCommiesGo]

19 minutes ago, d0ublestr0ker0ll said:

 

On the scale of mass shootings though, the instances of a kid stealing their parent's car isn't a car accident....it's a mass shooting.

 

How do you scan a person for being able to lock their combat gear away 100% of the time?

The idea is to vet someone enough that you remove a large portion of the risk pool. You’re not going to solve / stop everything but you put a hard check in place. 
 

it removes the ability for someone to go pickup same day firearms and forces them to at least interact with the system. Currently most gun stores only have to run a simple background check through the FBI NICS system and ad long as you don’t have a criminal record your free to go same day. 
 

Licensing at least will put a set of requirements in place such as mandatory safety classes, comprehensive background check and interaction with a LEO. 
 

just my two cents. 

[PleaseBlitz]

https://www.texasobserver.org/greg-abbott-uvalde-shooting/
 

GREG ABBOTT IS FULL OF ****
 

Quote

On Tuesday, as the world knows already, an 18-year-old man carried an AR-15-style rifle into a 574-student elementary school just off Highway 83 in the town of Uvalde, 90 minutes west of San Antonio. Unobstructed by police, he barricaded himself in a 4th grade classroom and unleashed hell on earth, slaying 19 children and two teachers—the worst school shooting in Texas history. After an hour, as frantic parents panicked outside, law enforcement finally killed the man. 
 

In moments like these, maddeningly frequent, what is it we expect from our political leaders? The answer varies according to partisanship. But, generally, we want a leader who feels what we feel, who tells the truth, and who plausibly promises policies to address the problem—the first being a salve for public wounds, the second a necessity for democracy, and the third the literal job description of those in power. With Texas’ governor, you’ll get none of this, and you may as well like it, because he’s not changing. 

 

Shortly after the massacre, Governor Greg Abbott first addressed the shooting at a news conference. In a state that had seen five other mass shootings in his tenure, four of which involved similar assault-style rifles, Abbott said—with passionless delivery—that the killer acted “incomprehensibly.” Without any specifics whatsoever, he pledged the state would “do everything that is necessary” to prevent a seventh bloodbath. Then, he stopped by a fundraiser five hours away.

More at link.