General Mass Shooting Thread (originally Las Vegas Strip)

[thegreaterbuzzette]

5 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

It would obviously have to be paired with some sort of ban.  Perhaps another AWB and only pistols/rifles in apparent working condition would be eligible.  Just spitballing.

I don't consider a pair with a ban to be a "buy back" situation . I consider that eminent domain....

 

"Apparent working condition" - that requires a lot more than appearance to my limited knowledge. Can anyone with more knowledge speak to this?

 

Note - this maybe should move to gun control thread. This has veered off the mass shooting topic at hand. 

Edited June 4, 2019 by thegreaterbuzzette
Off topic

[CousinsCowgirl84]

2 years ago when the vb shooter bought the guns I imagine he was a good guy who would never be involved in an act of gun violence.  He didn’t have a criminal record, there were no red flags, he had a successful career.  Kind of points to why mental health isn’t enough. 

 

 

OTH maybe if they made the requirement that you need to be married in order to own a gun... not to many married mass shooters are there?

Edited June 4, 2019 by CousinsCowgirl84

[thegreaterbuzzette]

Just now, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

2 years ago when the vb shooter bought the guns I imagine he was a good guy who would never be involved in an act of gun violence.  He didn’t have a criminal record, there were no red flags, he had a successful career.  Kind of points to why mental health isn’t enough. 

Again, this needs to be looked at from the workplace violence stand point and not mass shooting to truly diagnose causation/effect.

 

And contrarily, this is exactly why mental health can be the answer. Something clearly happened in this person's life that day that lead him to send the email to his employer. 

 

Hindsight is 20/20 but that email should have lead to extra security on the grounds, a wellness check sent to track him down and evaluate, and immediate alert to at least key employees to BOLO.

 

 

Just now, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

OTH maybe if they made the requirement that you need to be married in order to buy a gun... not to many married mass shooters are there?

Statements like this do not move the solution any closer. Again with a clear lack of desire to solve anything. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

3 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

Again, this needs to be looked at from the workplace violence stand point and not mass shooting to truly diagnose causation/effect.

 

Im not really sure what this means

 

3 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

 

And contrarily, this is exactly why mental health can be the answer. Something clearly happened in this person's life that day that lead him to send the email to his employer.

 

Maybe...

 

3 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

 

Statements like this do not move the solution any closer. Again with a clear lack of desire to solve anything. 

 

Was just a slight joke. But there aren’t any married mass shooters i’m aware of? Coincidence... i think not

[thegreaterbuzzette]

7 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Im not really sure what this means

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_violence 

 

 I know it's Wikipedia, but there is some great information there. The main difference is motive, planning, and other logistics.

 

Very different criminology than a terrorism, domestic terrorism, hate crime type mass shooting.

7 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Was just a slight joke. But there aren’t any married mass shooters i’m aware of? Coincidence... i think not

 

Not a coincidence. Again mental health. Many are manic, troubled, extremists which does not sync well with marriage. 

[twa]

2 minutes ago, thegreaterbuzzette said:

 

 

 

Not a coincidence. Again mental health. Many are manic, troubled, extremists which does not sync well with marriage. 

 

The married ones commit suicide first.

 

 

 

[MartinC]

2 hours ago, tshile said:

 

Right. It is the only option. 

 

If it wasn’t something would have been done after sandy hook. 

 

So it’s the only option. At least, in the real world. It’s not for message board arguing I suppose. If you like taking positions that won’t happen and arguing about them. 

 

The thing is if we all just accept that gun control ‘wont happen’ - then we will be right.

 

And I know ‘gun control’ is a very broad term.

[tshile]

1 hour ago, MartinC said:

 

The thing is if we all just accept that gun control ‘wont happen’ - then we will be right.

 

And I know ‘gun control’ is a very broad term.

 

I did t say you had to give up on your idea. 

 

Just that hat right now, your ideas aren’t an option. You said they were. 

 

They arent. If they were, it’d be done. And it isn’t being done. 

[MartinC]

13 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I did t say you had to give up on your idea. 

 

Just that hat right now, your ideas aren’t an option. You said they were. 

 

They arent. If they were, it’d be done. And it isn’t being done. 

 

Of course meaningful gun control is an option. It might not be realistic right now given who has the White House and the Senate majority - it might not even be realistic for meaningful change to happen even if the Democrats win both the White House and Senate in 2020.  But polls show opinions are slowly shifting - at some point if the stronger gun control option keeps being presented a weight of opinion might allow it to break through.

 

I agree with you though that if something like Sandy Hook did not shock people out of their views it’s hard to think what will right now - so I’m not holding my breath.

[Dan T.]

3 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

But there aren’t any married mass shooters i’m aware of? Coincidence... i think not

 

The Pulse Nightclub shooter in Orlando was married. He killed 49 and wounded 53 others. 

 

Also, the Las Vegas shooter had a long time girlfriend. Don’t know if she was considered a common law wife, though they did live together, if i remember correctly.  

file

Edited June 4, 2019 by Dan T.

[tshile]

28 minutes ago, MartinC said:

It might not be realistic right now given who has the White House and the Senate majority - it might not even be realistic for meaningful change to happen even if the Democrats win both the White House and Senate in 2020.

Right

 

exactly right. 

 

Which is why you (if you’re in charge of such things) need to be doing something right now. 

 

Likes, yesterday type right now. 

 

There are are no other options. You’ve written it out for me. 

 

Or I guess you could tell the spouses of the dead employees in the lobby that you were working on those 2024 lobbying efforts. 

[MartinC]

7 hours ago, tshile said:

Right

 

exactly right. 

 

Which is why you (if you’re in charge of such things) need to be doing something right now. 

 

Likes, yesterday type right now. 

 

There are are no other options. You’ve written it out for me. 

 

Or I guess you could tell the spouses of the dead employees in the lobby that you were working on those 2024 lobbying efforts. 

 

You get it’s possible to work on more than one thing at a time right?

[tshile]

1 hour ago, MartinC said:

 

You get it’s possible to work on more than one thing at a time right?

 

Yeah.

 

you get that you just admitted that the best case scenario for gun control is in 5 years, right?

 

just everyone sit tight for 5 years? Hope you don’t have a shooting in the meantime at your office?

[MartinC]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

 

Yeah.

 

you get that you just admitted that the best case scenario for gun control is in 5 years, right?

 

just everyone sit tight for 5 years? Hope you don’t have a shooting in the meantime at your office?

 

5 years is extremely optimistic - IF people who believe that gun control is the only real solution continue to campaign and lobby hard right now while also working on other near term interim measures to try to mitigate the disaster happening in front of our eyes.

 

Culture change takes time - and is almost always driven top down. But pressure from younger generations (who voted in record numbers at the mid terms) will also tell.

[mcsluggo]

On 6/2/2019 at 3:49 PM, Renegade7 said:

 

I work for federal court system in dc, there are at least 6-7 armed personnel protecting the entrances to the building which involving buzzing in, man traps, and metal detectors.  If schools have lockdown procedures, this shouldnt be a public sector issue. 

 

At this point there needs to be bulletproof glass and mandatory door locking mechanisms standard in public and private sector, this is bare minimum **** that some school districts in midwest are already ahead of the game on.

 

19 hours ago, tshile said:

 

Yeah?

 

you should try sitting in a room with executives pitching that. 

 

You get shut up because it won’t be welcoming, community this and that, etc. 

 

what seems obvious is often hard to get buy in from when you’re not the main decision maker. 

 

Just so happens those people aren’t the ones that’ll be in the main line of fire should an event occur. Guess that’s why all their employees are citing safety concerns (specifically in regards to mass shootings) in their evaluations while the execs are hemming and hawing about how it won’t be “welcoming” and pointing out the police are 5 minute away

 

/rant

They already have. Their best (only?) offered idea is to arm teachers. 

 

So...

 

 

what is the benefit cost analysis of this?   putting up bulletproof glass EVERYWHERE versus the actual impact this would have on this type of incident?   

 

it seems like more of a veneer to me... the sort of thing that you can do to look like you are doing SOMETHING, without having much of an actual impact?   

 

 

In my home, i have glass french doors leading to my back porch, and large picture windows for every other window back there   (none of them are bulletproof).   If i am designing for the zombie apocalypse, or trying to keep out active shooters, then it isn't the optimum design....   but should that be the primary design objective ?   If i lived in Lagos or San Salvador, or Westeros .... i would HAVE to incorporate more defense into my architecture.     But that is because of societal failings in those places.   It is not what the homes in Copenhagen look like, and that is what i would rather aspire towards.   

 

 

 

[mcsluggo]

12 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

OTH maybe if they made the requirement that you need to be married in order to own a gun... not to many married mass shooters are there?

 

 

on the other hand, i am fairly certain that spouses are far and away the most common victims of individual (non mass) shooters.   (im not sure, though ????)

[tshile]

15 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

what is the benefit cost analysis of this?   putting up bulletproof glass EVERYWHERE versus the actual impact this would have on this type of incident?   

 

it seems like more of a veneer to me... the sort of thing that you can do to look like you are doing SOMETHING, without having much of an actual impact?   

 

Bullet proof glass and locking doors, implemented correctly, works. It’s not a veneer. 

 

Maybe you should spend some time interviewing employees whose job it is to sit in lobbies in certain public buildings, or spend they’re entire job walking around buildings that are open to the public, buildings that are easily identifiable as possible targets to a crazy person, about how they feel about it? Cause I already know. 

 

Have you ever sat in a meeting with people who specialize in building safety/protection about it?

26 minutes ago, MartinC said:

5 years is extremely optimistic - IF people who believe that gun control is the only real solution continue to campaign and lobby hard right now while also working on other near term interim measures to try to mitigate the disaster happening in front of our eyes.

 

Culture change takes time - and is almost always driven top down. But pressure from younger generations (who voted in record numbers at the mid terms) will also tell.

Exactly. 

 

And sitting around waiting for that is dumb. The reality is if you’re in charge of such a responsibility for your company, then waiting for the federal government to do your job for you by implementing gun control is dumb and you should be fired.

 

like I said. You either act or you don’t. It’s pretty simple. Wait for the federal government at your own peril (more likely the peril of others)

Edited June 4, 2019 by tshile

[MartinC]

11 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

And sitting around waiting for that is dumb. 

 

Can you point me to where I argue we should sit around and do nothing else in the interim while arguing for meaningful gun control? 

 

In in fact I have explicitly stated the exact opposite on a couple of occasions in my responses to you.  

[tshile]

6 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

Can you point me to where I argue we should sit around and do nothing else in the interim while arguing for meaningful gun control? 

 

In in fact I have explicitly stated the exact opposite on a couple of occasions in my responses to you.  

 

I believe you originally quoted me saying that it’s the only option, and then proceeded to tell me about all these other options that aren’t real options. In your words, those other options could been seen in 5 years and that’s an optimistic timeline. 

 

So no, you’re wrong, if it’s your job to provide safety to your building/employees then installing things like bullet proof glass and locking doors and lights and security staff is your only option. 

[Larry]

13 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

OTH maybe if they made the requirement that you need to be married in order to own a gun... not to many married mass shooters are there?

 

47 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

 

on the other hand, i am fairly certain that spouses are far and away the most common victims of individual (non mass) shooters.   (im not sure, though ????)

 

So, to buy a gun, you have to be married and have your spouse's permission?

 

(Runs and hides). 

[MartinC]

37 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I believe you originally quoted me saying that it’s the only option,

 

I quoted YOU saying that things like safety glass/armed guards/locking doors etc are the only option.

 

Clearly things like that are short term options that deal with the symptoms of a problem, like taking morphine to stop the pain from cancer. But no matter how much morphine you take you still have cancer and it will kill you eventually. Curing cancer is hard - so while we keep giving people morphine researchers work on finding that cure however hard and long that takes. Seems pretty logical to me.

[mcsluggo]

37 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I believe you originally quoted me saying that it’s the only option, and then proceeded to tell me about all these other options that aren’t real options. In your words, those other options could been seen in 5 years and that’s an optimistic timeline. 

 

So no, you’re wrong, if it’s your job to provide safety to your building/employees then installing things like bullet proof glass and locking doors and lights and security staff is your only option. 

 

 

doors that require a key to get in .. .is the function of doors.  yes, a good thing.   

 

how much bullet proof glass are we talking about?  where ?  for who?

 

 

bullet proof glass at the IRS headquarters, or Comet Ping Pong, or the NRA headquarters ....      (places that can consider themselves actual targets of animosity) ... it makes some sense.

 

but should all churches be locked up and have bulletproof glass?   the offices for every business ?  or every podunk municipal offices?     How much safer does it make us?  at what cost?  (both the $$$ to retrofit EVERY building, AND the acceleration of the attitude that we are all one trigger finger away from an attack at any second... )

 

 

THere are ALWAYS an INFINITE set of possible risks out there.  And there are ALWAYS INFINITE possible risk abatement measures that could be taken at any given time to control against some possible risk.   But we have to ask whether each and every one is worth it, everyplace, or not?        We could set codes that require ALL buildings to be able to weather a Cat5 hurricane or tornado.   And it would be shown to absolutely save lives ... when a Cat5 hurricane comes around.    but should we do that?  (the answer is no, we shouldn't)  

 

 

for bulletproof glass... same question.   

 

   

[tshile]

45 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

but should all churches be locked up and have bulletproof glass?   the offices for every business ?  or every podunk municipal offices?     How much safer does it make us?  at what cost?  

Guess it depends on what your other options and priorities are 

 

if you’re responsible for the safety of a building and the people inside of it, you can choose to do something or choose to do nothing.

 

and waiting for the government to implement gun control, in the context of your actual responsibility, is choosing to do nothing. 

[Renegade7]

2 hours ago, mcsluggo said:

 

 

 

what is the benefit cost analysis of this?   putting up bulletproof glass EVERYWHERE versus the actual impact this would have on this type of incident?   

 

it seems like more of a veneer to me... the sort of thing that you can do to look like you are doing SOMETHING, without having much of an actual impact?   

 

 

Some of y'all don't get how layers of security work and that's why this conversation is going in circles.  Newtown shooter shot through the glass to get in the building.  It changes that situation dramatically when the shooter can't get in the building, that's the goal here. 

 

Would the glass be enough by itself, that's not the goal or the point, that was first thing he tried so if it was bulletproof he would've had to find another way in the building that he probably didn't plan for with school now aware that he's trying from hearing gunfire at the front door.

 

Door locks and bullet proof glass are two layers that really are worth the investment of not having more kids killed. Keep them out the building or at from going from room to room. When we are talking cost benefit, we have to keep in mind that one side of the chart is people dying, not servers going down.

 

2 hours ago, mcsluggo said:

In my home, i have glass french doors leading to my back porch, and large picture windows for every other window back there   (none of them are bulletproof).   If i am designing for the zombie apocalypse, or trying to keep out active shooters, then it isn't the optimum design....   but should that be the primary design objective ?   If i lived in Lagos or San Salvador, or Westeros .... i would HAVE to incorporate more defense into my architecture.     But that is because of societal failings in those places.   It is not what the homes in Copenhagen look like, and that is what i would rather aspire towards.   

 

Pretty much every mass shooting in this thread happened at a non-private residency, so I don't get why you even brought this up.  This ain't mad max, but this mass shooting thing is the new norm, costing lives us trying to grapple with that, we're here now.

[visionary]

Would those things also make it harder for potential victims to escape once the killer is inside?