5 ms·

It likely will for a variety of reasons. People will make up all kinds of reasons why "this doesn't happen anywhere else", they'll completely ignore the actual

It likely will for a variety of reasons. People will make up all kinds of reasons why "this doesn't happen anywhere else", they'll completely ignore the actual cause of the violence (a person), they'll make excuses, bring up solutions that are illegal, entirely ignore cultural issues, ignore that psychopaths are looking to be famous, point at more laws which won't do anything because the existing ones didn't work/etc.

dragontamer 4y ago
I mean, I overheard my coworkers discussing pretty awful talking points. Ex: saying that gun control won't work because we'll just be killing each other with swords. Which ignores the fact that its a lot harder to kill 18-children + 1 teacher with a sword, than it is to kill the same number with a gun. -------- There's also the discussion point where "background checks won't have any effect", except we know that this person legally purchased a gun just days before deciding to shoot his grandma (and continued the shooting-spree into this school). Just giving that person maybe 2-weeks of break between buying the gun, and having the gun, could have been the time needed for that person to calm down internally and find himself. As long as people can walk into a gunstore, pickup a gun the same day, they can execute these power-fantasy moves. I'm not sure if a background check would work in this case. But any kind of "innate delay" to the gun buying process, to give any would-be mass shooter some time to think it over, would almost certainly reduce the amount of gun violence. Almost all major mass shootings in the USA for the past decade seemed to be with a very, very, very recently bought gun (within a week or two). ------- The "background-check" argument seems to point out the issues of spouse-abuse as a high correlation to mass gun shootings. It'd probably work in other cases, but not this most recent shooting. The "background check" against racism might work, since just a few days ago there was a racially motivated mass shooting. ------ In any case, there's a lot of bad talking points on this subject, pretty much espoused by everybody? I'm not entirely sure how to move forward with discussion.
- WillPostForFood 4y ago
  There is already a federal background check process on every purchase from a store or gun dealer; both the Texas and Buffalo shooters passed their background check. To stop these guys you have to get working process to get them into the "can't purchase" list.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    "Background check" is vague and unhelpful. The question is "what should be on the background check". Spousal abuse seems like an easy one, since that is a crime and seems to correlate to these attackers. Adding it to the process seems easy enough, as long as we get enough people to agree it should be a background check option. Racism unfortunately has free-speech / 1st amendment right issues. It'd be a harder discussion point in general. But there needs to be a discussion about the rise in hate-speech and racism, especially since a lot of these mass-shootings are racially motivated.
    - thinkmassive 4y ago
      > Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, or are you or have you ever been a member of the military and been convicted of a crime that included, as an element, the use of force against a person as identified in the instructions? Question 21.i on Form 4473 https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download
    - chroma 4y ago
      It is already illegal for anyone convicted of domestic violence (or subject to a restraining order) to possess firearms. The ATF form 4473[1] includes these questions about domestic violence: > Are you subject to a court order, including a Military Protection Order issued by a military judge or magistrate, restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner? > Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, or are you or have you ever been a member of the military and been convicted of a crime that included, as an element, the use of force against a person as identified in the instructions? The information is verified by NICS[2], which will reject you if you've been convicted of domestic violence or are subject to a court order. Lying on this form is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison. The penalty applies even if the NICS check fails (meaning you never got possession of the firearm). 1. https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-trans... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Back...
- bifrost 4y ago
  There was a mass stabbing in Norway last week, so thats pretty accurate. Waiting periods are never effective for anything aside from suicide, and they may technically be unconstitutional, that is being fought in the courts right now. NICS checks are really only effective in dealing with criminal behavior. In this case we're talking about a psychopath who had been manifesting outwardly for a while. For the most part you can't legally background check someone's mental health. What would've worked in this case is "social surveillance" and having the people he interacted with every day report him.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kongsberg_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kongsberg_attack Wikipedia gives me the Kongsberg Attack, which was only 5 people killed + 3 injured. This is much much smaller than the 18 people killed in this elementary school, + the grandmother of the suspect (who was probably shot before the whole event started). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting Las Vegas shooting was 50+ people killed. Orlando Nightclub: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting 49 people killed. It seems like dropping down to knife/sword fights would cut deaths significantly, unless you can show me some mass-stabbing numbers close to these 50-ish sized crowds.
    - speeder 4y ago
      If you look in countries where guns are banned but are with comparable size to USA you will see mass murders by other methods, even if they are more infrequent than in USA (for example mass stabbings, bombings, arson, or more than once in Brazillian schools: mass murder using axes, and at one time, a crossbow) Then there are mass murders using vehicles, like it happened in Europe several times in the past 15 years, or mass destruction with vehicle, like the "Killdozer" in USA itself.
      - dragontamer 4y ago
        I'm not arguing against that fact. I'm arguing that in the USA, mass-murder events have 15 to 50 deaths involved. In other countries, the number is just 5 to 20. Weapons of choice matter. Guns kill more people more reliably than a knife, or even a car.
- LinuxBender 4y ago
  There have been a number of mass stabbings with swords in recent years. Japan appears to have quite a pattern of this and the body count is often higher. I am no expert with a sword but I have cleared a few acres of brush with a machete and the first thing that comes to mind is that it doesn't go bang thus giving the attacker a little more time before confrontation. The downside was that I got a nasty blister on my thumb due to using the wrong gloves but I can clear brush for hours on end. I would never harm anyone unprovoked and attacking anyone in my state would be suicide as everyone here is packing. The ratio is something like 221:1 firearms to people, yet no mass shootings, yet. No idea why. There are virtually no ammo or suppressor restrictions. My state and a neighboring state have a 66% firearm ownership rate but I think that counts children. The only thing that really comes to mind is that most folks here are religious, mostly Mormon. They are very family oriented and if a kid is getting picked on the parents will confront the other parents, likely in church. There is a bit of peer pressure to not be a bad person. But that could be entirely unrelated.
  - jjeaff 4y ago
    I assume you are talking about Utah. It's a very small state. Looks like it falls in line with most other states with a similar population size.
    - LinuxBender 4y ago
      That's my neighbors to the south. They do have issues with firearms despite being heavily Mormon. My neighbors to the north are Montana. I am not sure what makes Wyoming and Montana unique from Utah in that regard.
      - jjeaff 4y ago
        Oh, in that case you are talking about a state with an even smaller population. Statistically, Wyoming is still in line with other states even if it has never had a school shooting. In other words, there is not enough data to draw any conclusions about whether WY is better off in this regard.
dane-pgp 4y ago
> the actual cause of the violence (a person) Are you saying that other countries with less gun violence per capita just have better people?
- bifrost 4y ago
  No, I'm saying their cultures do not tolerate abberation and violence.
PierceJoy 4y ago
You replied to a comment hopeful that this will not dissolve into a flame war with a comment directly inciting a flame war. Good job.

dragontamer 4y ago

I mean, I overheard my coworkers discussing pretty awful talking points. Ex: saying that gun control won't work because we'll just be killing each other with swords. Which ignores the fact that its a lot harder to kill 18-children + 1 teacher with a sword, than it is to kill the same number with a gun. -------- There's also the discussion point where "background checks won't have any effect", except we know that this person legally purchased a gun just days before deciding to shoot his grandma (and continued the shooting-spree into this school). Just giving that person maybe 2-weeks of break between buying the gun, and having the gun, could have been the time needed for that person to calm down internally and find himself. As long as people can walk into a gunstore, pickup a gun the same day, they can execute these power-fantasy moves. I'm not sure if a background check would work in this case. But any kind of "innate delay" to the gun buying process, to give any would-be mass shooter some time to think it over, would almost certainly reduce the amount of gun violence. Almost all major mass shootings in the USA for the past decade seemed to be with a very, very, very recently bought gun (within a week or two). ------- The "background-check" argument seems to point out the issues of spouse-abuse as a high correlation to mass gun shootings. It'd probably work in other cases, but not this most recent shooting. The "background check" against racism might work, since just a few days ago there was a racially motivated mass shooting. ------ In any case, there's a lot of bad talking points on this subject, pretty much espoused by everybody? I'm not entirely sure how to move forward with discussion.

WillPostForFood 4y ago
There is already a federal background check process on every purchase from a store or gun dealer; both the Texas and Buffalo shooters passed their background check. To stop these guys you have to get working process to get them into the "can't purchase" list.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  "Background check" is vague and unhelpful. The question is "what should be on the background check". Spousal abuse seems like an easy one, since that is a crime and seems to correlate to these attackers. Adding it to the process seems easy enough, as long as we get enough people to agree it should be a background check option. Racism unfortunately has free-speech / 1st amendment right issues. It'd be a harder discussion point in general. But there needs to be a discussion about the rise in hate-speech and racism, especially since a lot of these mass-shootings are racially motivated.
  - thinkmassive 4y ago
    > Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, or are you or have you ever been a member of the military and been convicted of a crime that included, as an element, the use of force against a person as identified in the instructions? Question 21.i on Form 4473 https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download
  - chroma 4y ago
    It is already illegal for anyone convicted of domestic violence (or subject to a restraining order) to possess firearms. The ATF form 4473[1] includes these questions about domestic violence: > Are you subject to a court order, including a Military Protection Order issued by a military judge or magistrate, restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner? > Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, or are you or have you ever been a member of the military and been convicted of a crime that included, as an element, the use of force against a person as identified in the instructions? The information is verified by NICS[2], which will reject you if you've been convicted of domestic violence or are subject to a court order. Lying on this form is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison. The penalty applies even if the NICS check fails (meaning you never got possession of the firearm). 1. https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-trans... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Back...
bifrost 4y ago
There was a mass stabbing in Norway last week, so thats pretty accurate. Waiting periods are never effective for anything aside from suicide, and they may technically be unconstitutional, that is being fought in the courts right now. NICS checks are really only effective in dealing with criminal behavior. In this case we're talking about a psychopath who had been manifesting outwardly for a while. For the most part you can't legally background check someone's mental health. What would've worked in this case is "social surveillance" and having the people he interacted with every day report him.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kongsberg_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kongsberg_attack Wikipedia gives me the Kongsberg Attack, which was only 5 people killed + 3 injured. This is much much smaller than the 18 people killed in this elementary school, + the grandmother of the suspect (who was probably shot before the whole event started). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting Las Vegas shooting was 50+ people killed. Orlando Nightclub: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting 49 people killed. It seems like dropping down to knife/sword fights would cut deaths significantly, unless you can show me some mass-stabbing numbers close to these 50-ish sized crowds.
  - speeder 4y ago
    If you look in countries where guns are banned but are with comparable size to USA you will see mass murders by other methods, even if they are more infrequent than in USA (for example mass stabbings, bombings, arson, or more than once in Brazillian schools: mass murder using axes, and at one time, a crossbow) Then there are mass murders using vehicles, like it happened in Europe several times in the past 15 years, or mass destruction with vehicle, like the "Killdozer" in USA itself.
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      I'm not arguing against that fact. I'm arguing that in the USA, mass-murder events have 15 to 50 deaths involved. In other countries, the number is just 5 to 20. Weapons of choice matter. Guns kill more people more reliably than a knife, or even a car.
LinuxBender 4y ago
There have been a number of mass stabbings with swords in recent years. Japan appears to have quite a pattern of this and the body count is often higher. I am no expert with a sword but I have cleared a few acres of brush with a machete and the first thing that comes to mind is that it doesn't go bang thus giving the attacker a little more time before confrontation. The downside was that I got a nasty blister on my thumb due to using the wrong gloves but I can clear brush for hours on end. I would never harm anyone unprovoked and attacking anyone in my state would be suicide as everyone here is packing. The ratio is something like 221:1 firearms to people, yet no mass shootings, yet. No idea why. There are virtually no ammo or suppressor restrictions. My state and a neighboring state have a 66% firearm ownership rate but I think that counts children. The only thing that really comes to mind is that most folks here are religious, mostly Mormon. They are very family oriented and if a kid is getting picked on the parents will confront the other parents, likely in church. There is a bit of peer pressure to not be a bad person. But that could be entirely unrelated.
- jjeaff 4y ago
  I assume you are talking about Utah. It's a very small state. Looks like it falls in line with most other states with a similar population size.
  - LinuxBender 4y ago
    That's my neighbors to the south. They do have issues with firearms despite being heavily Mormon. My neighbors to the north are Montana. I am not sure what makes Wyoming and Montana unique from Utah in that regard.
    - jjeaff 4y ago
      Oh, in that case you are talking about a state with an even smaller population. Statistically, Wyoming is still in line with other states even if it has never had a school shooting. In other words, there is not enough data to draw any conclusions about whether WY is better off in this regard.

dane-pgp 4y ago

> the actual cause of the violence (a person) Are you saying that other countries with less gun violence per capita just have better people?

bifrost 4y ago
No, I'm saying their cultures do not tolerate abberation and violence.

PierceJoy 4y ago

You replied to a comment hopeful that this will not dissolve into a flame war with a comment directly inciting a flame war. Good job.