General Mass Shooting Thread (originally Las Vegas Strip)

[techboy]

1 hour ago, Llevron said:

What makes them more mature after 21? The ability to legally get wasted? 

 

23 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Basically, the Supreme Court relied on a mountain of sociological studies that said, basically, the human brain is not totally developed until you are about 20 or 21, so people below that are prone to do bad things, but they shouldn't get life in prison.

 

Actually, the frontal lobe doesn't fully develop until around age 25.

 

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051

 

t doesn’t matter how smart teens are or how well they scored on the SAT or ACT. Good judgment isn’t something they can excel in, at least not yet.

The rational part of a teen’s brain isn’t fully developed and won’t be until age 25 or so.

 

In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part.

 

In teen’s brains, the connections between the emotional part of the brain and the decision-making center are still developing—and not necessarily at the same rate. That’s why when teens experience overwhelming emotional input, they can’t explain later what they were thinking. They weren’t thinking as much as they were feeling.

 

It's good that the Supremes are starting to come around on this, but I actually don't think many of our systems adequately account for this, even considering recent changes.

[AsburySkinsFan]

7 minutes ago, Llevron said:

(Wasnt calling out Kilmer, Spiff's logic would be the target here) 

 

You really telling me that the Dems are the problem here? 

You are misding the point. YES the NRA fans the flames, but to deny that the Dems give them the fuel to set on fire is to deny reality. The Dems in their fervency and well meaningness end up unintended consequences. THAT is the point. And if you don’t think so just look at what happened to gun sales after Sandy Hook when Obama started talking guns. 

The Right simply does not trust Dems on guns, and I can’t say wholly that I blame them, because too often they pick the wrong fights on guns or go extremism. 

Now I will say that the rise in sales is 85% fanned flames and 15% provided wood, but lets get real, the Dems haven’t approched the issue well in the past.

[NoCalMike]

6 hours ago, redskinss said:

Because to outlaw it because of a gun problem is akin to outlawing the ford mustang because of a speeding problem. 

I agree something has to be done but that won't do anything,  a different gun will become the most popular and then we'll be discussing why that one is still legal.

 

 

You're mis-understanding my question.  I don't care if AR-15's are the weapon of choice in mass shootings or not.  What purpose do they serve to be available to the public, period?  Remove them entirely from the atrocities they have facilitated and explain to me what good they have done for the public. 

 

I know the answer is probably moot at this point, as is the overall issue when it comes to guns because there are so many out there in the country already circulating that I am not sure if there is a solution to this issue that won't take decades/generations to slowly solve. 

Edited February 15, 2018 by NoCalMike

[AsburySkinsFan]

7 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

 

The NRA is part of this discussion whether you like it or not.  

 

“Now, the National Rifle Association knows that there are millions of qualified active and retired police; active, reserve and retired military; security professionals; certified firefighters and rescue personnel; and an extraordinary corps of patriotic, trained qualified citizens to join with local school officials and police in devising a protection plan for every school. We can deploy them to protect our kids now. We can immediately make America's schools safer — relying on the brave men and women of America's police force.”

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/21/nra-full-statement-lapierre-newtown

 

Wayne LaPierre after Sandy Hook in 2012 6 years ago.  The NRA had a solution, but it wasn’t the solution you were looking for.  

 

The NRA has repeatedly stated they want maximum penalties for those who commit crimes with guns leaving the rights of law-abiding citizens alone.  

 

The NRA’s solution is introducing more guns into schools while opposing gun restrictions on crazy people. The net result is an increase in gun sales at the expense of children and sanity. 

Stop pretending that the NRA is interested in preventing gun violence. They don’t give a damn.

[PeterMP]

14 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

 

The NRA is part of this discussion whether you like it or not.  

 

“Now, the National Rifle Association knows that there are millions of qualified active and retired police; active, reserve and retired military; security professionals; certified firefighters and rescue personnel; and an extraordinary corps of patriotic, trained qualified citizens to join with local school officials and police in devising a protection plan for every school. We can deploy them to protect our kids now. We can immediately make America's schools safer — relying on the brave men and women of America's police force.”

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/21/nra-full-statement-lapierre-newtown

 

Wayne LaPierre after Sandy Hook in 2012 6 years ago.  The NRA had a solution, but it wasn’t the solution you were looking for.  

 

The NRA has repeatedly stated they want maximum penalties for those who commit crimes with guns leaving the rights of law-abiding citizens alone.  

 

 

Uh, is it actually a solution?

 

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-florida-shooting/fbi-was-warned-about-alleged-florida-gunman-could-not-locate-idUSKCN1FZ15J

 

"The first victim of the attack was publicly identified on Thursday as Aaron Feis, an assistant coach on the school’s football team and a school security guard who was shot while shielding students, the team said on Twitter.

 

An armed law enforcement officer stationed at the school did not encounter Cruz during his rampage, Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel told reporters."

 

The NRA suggested something, but is any real evidence that it is actually a solution vs. a way to simply channel more money from the public into the gun industry, which is what is really funding the NRA today?

Edited February 15, 2018 by PeterMP

[PleaseBlitz]

3 minutes ago, techboy said:

 

 

Actually, the frontal lobe doesn't fully develop until around age 25.

.

 

Yes, I was trying to simplify.  Thats the reason my initial post was worded like this:  

 

Quote

There is actually a huge body of evidence that people are much more prone to making bad decisions and doing awful things before various ages.

 

By “before various ages” i was sort of hinting at the fact that studies show different developmental thresholds at 18, others around 21 and others at 25, that are all relevant to people being capable of, again simplifying, not doing dumb and dangerous ****. 

[AsburySkinsFan]

1 hour ago, Kilmer17 said:

I have another idea. 

 

Lets remove all screening and security at the US Capitol and all surrounding representative buildings.  

 

I wonder how fast real change would happen then

I rendmber how sad I was when I took my son to the Capitol several years ago and I saw the armed guards surrounding the entire building. Nothing quite so striking as the image of a black clad security with M-16’s on the front steps of the US Capitol.

[Spaceman Spiff]

9 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

You are misding the point. YES the NRA fans the flames, but to deny that the Dems give them the fuel to set on fire is to deny reality. The Dems in their fervency and well meaningness end up unintended consequences. THAT is the point. And if you don’t think so just look at what happened to gun sales after Sandy Hook when Obama started talking guns. 

The Right simply does not trust Dems on guns, and I can’t say wholly that I blame them, because too often they pick the wrong fights on guns or go extremism. 

Now I will say that the rise in sales is 85% fanned flames and 15% provided wood, but lets get real, the Dems haven’t approched the issue well in the past.

 

Well said.  

[Commander PK]

3 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Uh, is it actually a solution?

 

The NRA suggested something, but is any real evidence that it is actually a solution vs. a way to simply channel more money from the public into the gun industry, which is what is really funding the NRA today?

 

For the sake of argument, not saying I agree, If their plan helps stop mass shootings what does it matter where the money goes?  We want to save the kids right?  

 

Once you establish our gun problem is here to stay it’s wise to see the alternatives to window dressing legislation.  Why does the best solutions to our mass shooting problem have to be the destruction or limitation of the gun lobby and manufacturers in a country that already has 300 million guns in private hands?

[redskinss]

5 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

You're mis-understanding my question.  I don't care if AR-15's are the weapon of choice in mass shootings or not.  What purpose do they serve to be available to the public, period?  Remove them entirely from the atrocities they have facilitated and explain to me what good they have done for the public. 

I'm really just playing devils advocate here because I'm not opposed to banning the ar-15 but the argument can be made that millions of Americans enjoy owning and shooting that particular weapon, that is the purpose they serve. 

It doesn't really matter the ar-15 isn't going anywhere, we could have one of these shootings in a school everyday and still nothing will be done about it. 

My Facebook feed is already littered with pro guns rights posts about how 40 years ago every truck in every school had a gun rack and no shootings,  what changed?  And how child discipline is the problem or we need to put retired cops and military in every school etc,  etc. 

There are way too many people in love with their guns in this country, we are a nation of guns and I'm sorry but this debate is utterly useless because that'll never change. 

[Llevron]

1 minute ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

You are misding the point. YES the NRA fans the flames, but to deny that the Dems give them the fuel to set on fire is to deny reality. The Dems in their fervency and well meaningness end up unintended consequences. THAT is the point. And if you don’t think so just look at what happened to gun sales after Sandy Hook when Obama started talking guns. 

The Right simply does not trust Dems on guns, and I can’t say wholly that I blame them, because too often they pick the wrong fights on guns or go extremism. 

Now I will say that the rise in sales is 85% fanned flames and 15% provided wood, but lets get real, the Dems haven’t approched the issue well in the past.

 

Should Obama have not talked guns after Sandy Hook? Was it something about his approach that was scary to this portion of America? Or was it this notion that the Evil black president who wanted us all under Sharia law and wanted to take our guns all bull**** that was pushed on him and the fearful right as a way to boost sales by the NRA and a way to get votes by the GOP? 

 

Im not saying the Dems dont have any culpability in this. They can come to the table with much more than "All guns have to go" and im sure they have. But if their mistake is trying to address a problem in a scary way then what the hell are they even supposed to do? I mean Obama got elected in 2009 and didnt say a damn thing about guns until 26 elementary school kids died and he was still wrong? How sway? Tell me how. 

 

Maybe can the GOP back off on the "Its too early to talk" "Dems are using these deaths for political gains" "Obama wasnt born here" "They want to take away your second amendment right" bull. Then maybe we can start a conversation without half of the country ****ting their pants and buying guns out of fear. 

 

Also we gonna just ignore the NRA and Alex Jones telling you that this is all just a false flag so that they can take your guns away? You think we need to address democrats before that? 

[NoCalMike]

1 minute ago, redskinss said:

 

There are way too many people in love with their guns in this country, we are a nation of guns and I'm sorry but this debate is utterly useless because that'll never change. 

 

I've said as much before. I think "gun culture" might possibly be a bigger problem than guns themselves. The obsession, the almost cult-like worship of them. 

 

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

5 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

 

For the sake of argument, not saying I agree, If their plan helps stop mass shootings what does it matter where the money goes?  We want to save the kids right?  

 

Once you establish our gun problem is here to stay it’s wise to see the alternatives to window dressing legislation.  Why does the best solutions to our mass shooting problem have to be the destruction or limitation of the gun lobby and manufacturers in a country that already has 300 million guns in private hands?

In my darkest fatalistic moments I am prone to think the issue is here to stay, other times like now, not so much since I’m seeing a growing consensus toward action.

 

”What does it matter where the money goes?”

You’re kidding right? The NRA through their lobbying efforts creates an environment for the prolification of guns which leads to the increase in school shootings due to the wide availability. Then the NRA proposes a solution to stem the damage of the environment they helped curate and that is the prolification of MORE guns.

And you don’t think it matters?????????

 

WTH?!

Edited February 15, 2018 by AsburySkinsFan

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

This is horse****. Obama was president for 8 years. There were more guns sold during that time and more mass shootings then probably any other time in history before it. Never once did Obama propose confiscating guns or restricting sales to responsible gun owners. So if him saying, "hey, a classroom full of 1st graders got shot up. Maybe we should look at this... even study what's going on and see if there is some common sense legislation we could pass to reduce this type of tragedy." is giving the NRA fuel, then I just don't know what to say anymore.

 

"Don't say a ****ing thing about guns Obama!!! Then we wouldn't have to pretend like your planning to take all of our guns so you can overrun the country with your Muslim refugee fighting force. All Obama's fault."

 

or, and I love this one...

 

"We can start having a discussion once you admit that the gun problem is here to stay!"

 

What the actual **** are we doing here people?

Edited February 15, 2018 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[Larry]

15 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

You are misding the point. YES the NRA fans the flames, but to deny that the Dems give them the fuel to set on fire is to deny reality. The Dems in their fervency and well meaningness end up unintended consequences. THAT is the point. And if you don’t think so just look at what happened to gun sales after Sandy Hook when Obama started talking guns. 

The Right simply does not trust Dems on guns, and I can’t say wholly that I blame them, because too often they pick the wrong fights on guns or go extremism. 

 

If Obama would just do every thing that every Birther demands, including never once saying any thing which any Birther can cherry pick to distort, then the completely justified Birthers would stop responding to Obama's completely unjustified extremism.  The blame for the Birthers lies completely on Obama.  

 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

Yea, zip is going to happen for a long time, so I basically don't bother with the discussion.  

 

Protip:  Evidently it is considered impolite to ask whether the latest mass shooting "is a new high score" though.  Usually the pushback comes from people offering up thoughts and prayers in lieu of actual solutions.  

[AsburySkinsFan]

6 minutes ago, redskinss said:

I'm really just playing devils advocate here because I'm not opposed to banning the ar-15 but the argument can be made that millions of Americans enjoy owning and shooting that particular weapon, that is the purpose they serve. 

It doesn't really matter the ar-15 isn't going anywhere, we could have one of these shootings in a school everyday and still nothing will be done about it. 

My Facebook feed is already littered with pro guns rights posts about how 40 years ago every truck in every school had a gun rack and no shootings,  what changed?  And how child discipline is the problem or we need to put retired cops and military in every school etc,  etc. 

There are way too many people in love with their guns in this country, we are a nation of guns and I'm sorry but this debate is utterly useless because that'll never change. 

Same, my feed woke up today as well with all the same BS.

[PeterMP]

15 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

 

For the sake of argument, not saying I agree, If their plan helps stop mass shootings what does it matter where the money goes?  We want to save the kids right?  

 

Once you establish our gun problem is here to stay it’s wise to see the alternatives to window dressing legislation.  Why does the best solutions to our mass shooting problem have to be the destruction or limitation of the gun lobby and manufacturers in a country that already has 300 million guns in private hands?

 

Well, in any solution, there is going to be an issue of how much does it cost.  Solutions that save kids bu is so expensive that it prevents the very sick people from getting medical care they need isn't a very good solution.

 

In this particular case, it also goes to the motives of the NRA for suggesting that as a solution when there was already existing evidence that it doesn't do much good (this isn't the first place where there has been a mass school shooting where there was an armed presence that did limited to no good).

 

Beyond that, I don't think most people here are really even focused on schools.  I'm certainly not one to say that the lives of the kids in these schools had more value than the people in Las Vegas.

 

I also reject the idea that people killed in mass shootings lives are of more value than people killed by guns that are not the result of mass shootings.

 

I reject the idea that our gun problem is here to stay.

 

There are good studies that showed that books that were on the laws reduced gun violence.  I've posted here before, but I think it was Missouri.  They had a gun law on the books for like 60 years (licenses to own guns had to be "approved" by local law enforcement) that was removed in the early 200s to make access to guns easier.  Good controlled studies showed that gun deaths increased after changing the law.

 

Fact:  The number of people that own guns in the US is actually on a long term downward trend:

 

Edited February 15, 2018 by PeterMP

[Larry]

1 minute ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

This is horse****. Obama was president for 8 years. There were more guns sold during that time and more mass shootings then probably any other time in history before it. Never once did Obama propose confiscating guns or restricting sales to responsible gun owners. So if him saying, "hey, a classroom full of 1st graders got shot up. Maybe we should look at this... even study what's going on and see if there is some common sense legislation we could pass to reduce this type of tragedy." is giving the NRA fuel, then I just don't know what to say anymore.

 

"Don't say a ****ing thing about guns Obama!!! Then we wouldn't have to pretend like to plan to confiscate them so you can take over the country with your Muslim refugee fighting force. All Obama's fault."

 

What the actual **** are we doing here people?

 

Once saw an interview Jon Stewart did with Kevin Spacey, about House of Cards.  Stewart mentioned that Spacey had been allowed to spend several days following around members of Congress, to work on his character.  Stewart asked Spacey for his opinion on whether members of Congress actually believed the things they did, or was it all an act?  

 

Spacey:  It's performance art.  And a lot of them are really bad actors.  

 

[Rocky21]

1 hour ago, Painkiller said:

Actually, the NRA came out after Sandy Hook and offered solutions to help fix this problem, but nobody was interested in what they had to say because it did not involve new legislation to what we already have.  

 

Like it or not our society is one that must be made secure by good people with guns.  The cat is out of the bag, and it’s not going back in.  We have to deal with the situation we have now.  

Like the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is good guy with a gun rhetoric and blaming video games? 

[Bang]

"Maximum sentences will deter mass shootings."

 

that is ****ing HILARIOUS!!!!

 

 

Actually no it isn't it's completely ****ing stupid. It may be the most insanely naive thing ever ****ing said.

Penalties do not stop murderers, they never have. A mass shooter isn't trying to not get caught, he's trying to kill as many people right out in the ****ing open as he can.

All 'max sentences' will do is make sure they spend one more bullet on themselves.

 

****ing stupid. The best place the next bullet fired in this insane country can go is right through Wayne LaPierre's evil ****ing brain.

 

Oh, and hey.. don't forget to buy another gun.

 

~Bang

 

[Commander PK]

1 minute ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

In my darkest fatalistic moments I am prone to think the issue is here to stay, other times like now, not so much since I’m seeing a growing consensus toward action.

 

”What does it matter where the money goes?”

You’re kidding right? The NRA through their lobbying efforts creates an environment for the prolification of guns which leads to the increase in school shootings due to the wide availability. Then the NRA proposes a solution to stem the damage of the environment they helped curate and that is the prolification of MORE guns.

And you don’t think it matters?????????

 

WTH?!

 

You really think kids shoot up their schools in this country because guns are widely available and easy to get?   

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Kinda funny how the country with the most good guys with guns is the one where mass shootings happen ALL THE ****ING TIME!

 

It's almost like that talking point is actually just a bunch of bull**** and not true. Can't believe the lobby who puts out ads like this would lie to me though!

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

4 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

 

You really think kids shoot up their schools in this country because guns are widely available and easy to get?   

 

Yes

Make guns scarce and hard to get and they don’t shoot up schools.

 

[Commander PK]

Look, we have 300 million guns already in private hands In this country.  We could have mass shooting incidents for the next thousand years with all the guns we already have.  

 

Unless you plan plan to do something tangible about all the guns we already I don’t see the point in legislating anything new to stop mass shootings.   

 

You do not solve this problem that way.  Put simply, we do not have a future in this country where his kind of thing does not eventually happen.  There is no conceivable and attainable ban of any kind hat will stop mass shootings in 2018 and beyond.  

 

We have to work on changing who who we are and what we value.