Another day, another shooting in the US

[rapoon]

My penis tells me that I should have a gun. My heart tells me that no one should have guns. My head tells me that only people I like should have guns. My soul says nothing, because there's no such thing as a soul.

this is oddly beautiful....

[Lord Satori]

"there's no such thing as a soul"

Did you really have to go there?

[Kakizaki]

Blows regardless, but at least someone ended this before it got even worse. And they happened to stop the dude without a firearm. Imagine that, there are good guys that don't need guns.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/06/justice/s ... ?hpt=hp_t1

[evil_ash_xero]

I walked outside today, and got shot. I then got up and waved my flag above my head, as I bled all over the beautiful American earth.

[Skykid]

Been slacking on this topic of late, think we've probably overlooked several multiple homicide shootings and about a trillion black people murdered for sport by white cops.

Anyway, here's a recent fun one: white kid shoots dead black people in Methodist church, six women and three men, including the Pastor.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33187779

[ZacharyB]

Shootings at two block parties, in Philadelphia and Detroit, also happened over the weekend, with victims nearing 10 for each. Luckily, few fatalities.

[Skykid]

Shootings at two block parties, in Philadelphia and Detroit, also happened over the weekend, with victims nearing 10 for each. Luckily, few fatalities.

That's why we probably didn't get that one. Assuming shooting people is probably an hourly occurrence in the US, you need an actual death toll to make it onto the leaderboards (and tabloids).

[Strider77]

Been slacking on this topic of late, think we've probably overlooked several multiple homicide shootings and about a trillion black people murdered for sport by white cops.

What about blacks shot by blacks? I really wonder what the numbers on stuff like that would be, blacks shot by whites, whites shot by blacks or asians hit by ninja stars etc.

[DEL]

Skykid wrote;

Been slacking on this topic of late, think we've probably overlooked several multiple homicide shootings and about a trillion black people murdered for sport by white cops.

Anyway, here's a recent fun one: white kid shoots dead black people in Methodist church, six women and three men, including the Pastor.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33187779

There's your Hegelian Dialect in full effect.

[Skykid]

Been slacking on this topic of late, think we've probably overlooked several multiple homicide shootings and about a trillion black people murdered for sport by white cops.

What about blacks shot by blacks? I really wonder what the numbers on stuff like that would be, blacks shot by whites, whites shot by blacks or asians hit by ninja stars etc.

Blacks shot by blacks? Pretty darn high I'd imagine Tim, you're talking about a marginalised, ghetto-ised race born into terrible surroundings with almost zero prospects for meaningful education or work. They learn to be defensive from birth and inherit survival influence from their peers - strategies born from decades of desperation that often involve murder.

Just sometimes white cops like to swing by the neighbourhood to lend a hand with the body count.

[evil_ash_xero]

You know, when Sandy Hook happened, I was talking to my sister about it...and she's just like "well, Americans want all these guns..they're just going to have to put up with stuff like this". She's usually clueless about a lot of things, but that's pretty spot on.

This is always going to happen.
I used to be really passionate about getting gun control bills passed, but over the years, I have realized it's just not happening. It's kind of like the anti-abortionists, when they thought Bush W. Bush was going to put someone on the Supreme Court, that was anti-abortion, and they had a chance to make it illegal. I think the fact that this is never going to happen either, is dawning on them. Unlike gun control though, the do have some small victories, in certain states.

One thing that bothers me about the debate (lol) on gun control, is that so many of the supporters, are mainly hobbyists. And they don't want their guns taken away, because it's their hobby. So, they'll just overlook mass shootings with semi-automatic rifles, because THEY don't want to have to give those up.
It's really quite selfish, and has nothing to do with "if we have to go against the government, we'll have THESE". And even with that logic, you're dreaming if you don't think the government couldn't wipe out the most gun hoarding militia, in the U.S., in 5 minutes.

I have a gun, but it's out of fear, because everyone else has one. Also, there's a big drug problem in my area, so people have been breaking in. But I don't have a stockpile. Just a Smith and Wesson 40 Caliber.

I'm thinking about getting a shotgun, for intimidation purposes. I really don't want to actually shoot anyone. And I have a security system now, so hopefully that'll never happen.

[Ed Oscuro]

r/q title change to "Another day, two people killed in Russia for every one in the US"

That dumb neonazi takes the cake - apparently his manifesto is that black people are "dumb and violent," so he shoots up a Bible study class..? Say what you want about religion, but both words in that phrase - Bible and study - disprove his argument. Typical coward thing, picking on what looked like an easy target.

[MintyTheCat]

r/q title change to "Another day, two people killed in Russia for every one in the US"

That would be another thread surely?

[Skykid]

r/q title change to "Another day, two people killed in Russia for every one in the US"

Technically you could have a topic about less developed countries with a higher civilian death toll than the US, but it wouldn't be very interesting because not too many of them qualify. Brazil perhaps.

I think we're discussing the curiosity of a highly developed (supposedly) first world country with one of the world's most powerful economies having absolutely no understanding of how unfettered, legal gun ownership results in a lot of innocent deaths, which makes each new event that much more intriguing and bizarre.

[MintyTheCat]

I think it boils down to:

1. Culture: The US has a gun culture and indeed one of the tenets of its constitution is "the right to bear arms" - which very few people ask just why that is, why it was stated and such. You have to ask yourself really: do you feel safer or less safe knowing that those around you have guns? Then ask yourself why you feel safer or less safe in that knowledge. To my mind, and this comes from someone living in Europe I think any tool that facilitates the causing of death and injury would be something that any rational person would want to see less and indeed none of. Germany has a ridiculous smoking culture that's survived and sustained itself for decades. It is so embedded over here that people things it is absolutely normal to smoke in the face of children and to basically no give a flying fuck about your own health or those around you. Even the most well read magazines such as Der Spiegel rarely carry articles about smoking and cancer - last count they have had three mentions in the last ten years. It doesn't mean that less people die of cancer over here, it doesn't mean that you will not see many adverts in the back of newspapers offering cancer support and such, but it does mean that there is little to no public debate on smoking like the US with its gun culture - it's a hard nut to crack and it takes conviction to want to better things.

2. Money: Like Germany's tobacco industry which generates some 18 billion US$ each year and has the effect that Germany to all intents and purposes looks more like a third-world country on its public health and welfare when compared to virtually any other civilised country - there's just far too much money tied up in it and sadly people end up suffering and dying to keep the system in place up and running regardless of how much it strife, anguish, general misery and avoidable death it causes.

3. Politics: Yes, too many benefit from the way things are and it is usually unlikely that many want to rock the boat as that may well jeopardise an individual's position. Very few doctors over here dare to speak out about smoking and cancer in Germany and I dare say the same applies to the policy makers over in America. Of course this does nothing for the average person and makes their experience either neutral or worse.

It is very hard to beat culture but it can be accomplished. The US was way ahead on its tobacco reforms with many other countries have adopted and followed suit which was a good thing.

Much of this goes back to history though and indeed the lack of a good welfare system. If you look at Austria and Germany they both have long standing welfare system programmes and virtually free education. This gives people options and I have to say that a German Ghetto looks more like a nice place to live compared what you may find in many other countries such as England and the US.

Many years ago a Russian Engineer was having dinner with me and he said "you either have a good welfare system or a strong police force". I dare say the US opted for the strong police force, the system of imprisonment and sadly the death-penalty when virtually all other 'civilised' countries got rid of it decades ago.

Things usually have to get a lot worse before things eventually change but once you have the fear at work people fall in on themselves and each other and as a previous stated he felt it was necessary to own a gun out of fear. It is all a very sad state to be in and I can well understand why many Americans like Europe. I never once have had to think about crime in Germany but it was something I was more aware of often in England. I put it down to culture, standards and welfare and indeed someone somewhere saying "hang on a minute, do we want people revolting and causing a nuisance and what are we going to do about it". The German government will put money down on the line to prevent civil unrest but I barely see that happening say in England. All rests on policy when all is said and done.

Cheers,

Minty.

[Skykid]

I occasionally find myself in two minds about the right to bear arms, and that's in the one eventuality it would be absolutely necessary and useful. Funnily enough, this occasion would be based on the constitution that originally decreed the right to bear arms: that being to overthrow your government if they don't serve you as they should.

Were the American people to actually collaborate and use their legal arms to march on and overthrow the corporate powers controlling just about every factor of their lives, I admit I would be in favour of them having the weaponry at their disposal to do so. Unfortunately they seem way to preoccupied with light entertainment to notice they're getting fucked in the ass and therefore are just accepting the mental health issues that go hand in hand with a pressure cooker society and end up shooting each other instead of those responsible for their slavery/poverty.

I'd love to see that amendment put into practice, and I do see it happening eventually - but how much longer we have to wait I don't know.

[Satan]

I'd love a gun. If I could, I'd have a lock up full of them.

[MintyTheCat]

I occasionally find myself in two minds about the right to bear arms, and that's in the one eventuality it would be absolutely necessary and useful. Funnily enough, this occasion would be based on the constitution that originally decreed the right to bear arms: that being to overthrow your government if they don't serve you as they should.

But, well, no group of individuals could beat an organisation such as a government in all probability. They are better funded, better trained, better organised, better sanctioned, better able to influence the outcome either way and above all better armed. It is a joke to think that your local shooter would stand a chance in hell against a government's potential resources.

If you look back in history very few 'armed responses' succeeded in much in the way of peace and order for very long. Rather, it is better to offer a social/economic solution and let things adapt accordingly.

As such, the right to bear arms really falls flat as being "something useful" on those grounds.

If you look back in time the one thing that the US police wish to have done differently was that they armed their police in which case the criminals 'had to be' armed. The other was when they banned alcohol sales which in turn strengthened organised crime groups.

If you break it all down:

1. Number of deaths due to fire arms - easy to find.
2. Number of deaths due to fire arms in error - easyish to extrapolate.
3. Number of lives saved due to fire arms use - much harder to 'prove' despite what the NRA have to say about any related matter

Then think what would happen as the number of fire arms tended to zero - what would happen?

I think back to old Japan with its laws on the use and licensing of swords. There was and is a whole culture that surrounds the katana and the tanto and other weapons but there was also a well grounded and understood method for controlling the availability and use of the katana with pretty heavy and strict laws pertaining to their use. It takes substantially more conviction and will to kill someone with a blade than it would with a gun - there's this 'abstraction' of will and action and a deferment of understanding the implications when using a gun.

As such, a whole professional class and indeed a social class arose around the use of the katana in Japan and that is not present in the US. You would never have been able to buy a traditionally made katana in those days and apart from some campaigns in and around the time of WW2 the katana was never mass produced and has not been mass produced since.

So, we find that:

1. Availability: katana in Japan was comparatively rare and expensive to acquire vs. Guns galore in the US.

2. Social status: ANYONE who owned a katana was required and able to look after it and not flout it and indeed a whole social group developed around this weapon - the US does not have anything that approaches this level of discipline when compared to Japan and when you have people "buying them for their kids" as birthday presents I do not need to say any more - that's madness right there!

3. Conditioning: The real truth of conflict is that it is not something glamorous or in any way shape or form 'sexy'. Japan had literally hundreds of years of internal conflict and I dare say that during those times people came to appreciate the cost of armed conflict and indeed the social group created as the means of this and the application became custodians and over time their purpose changed. So you have a group that own, understand and have a history of dealing with conflict and war and eventually become the experts on the subject.
It makes it very difficult for others to challenge such a social construct as to be any threat you would at the least have to overcome the custodians of the weapon of the day.

Guns have been around for a long time now and they have changed the nature of war in concept: we do not need to commit with will and be physically in place any longer and this abstraction has changed the nature of war and conflict. Real conflict is right in your face, it smells bad, it is harrowing and this 'education' prepares and tempers hands over time.

With the coming of the industrial world and automated manufacture we find that yes we can mass produce items that can be for our benefit and indeed those that are lethal and cause death. What is missing is the social aspects, the responsibility that comes with such a large means of attaining things. Sadly, that part has been missed out and until people sit down, work out that it is a losing game to perpetuate the use, glamourisation and objectification of the gun as something to be revered and offer social status nothing will improve over there in the US.

Weapons are really means to kill and to cause death. Their use, I feel should come with the largest responsibility we can really ever expect to undertake. They are not, to my mind, for the commoner - you invest your trust in those that serve that purpose to protect you and your community. I would never attempt to fix my electrical supply at my home, that is better carried out by persons who appreciate, are trained, understand and whom are better qualified than me to carry out such work. Weapons, I feel, carry an even greater burden to the individuals charged with them.

If those who are ordained to carry out this action and to protect the commoner are not fulfilling that obligation ask why is that? What's failing? Where did we get it wrong?
As opposed to: "hell, I'll just do it myself". You encourage vigilantes, you encourage the usurping of common law and you make the system heterogenous. You effectively add noise and chaos to the system and chaos is the greatest source of options/opportunities and indeed "mis-kills" in this case.

I'd wager to bet that more people shoot themselves over there than any would be robber.
The majority of people are not adept, not disciplined and cave in under any serious pressure and we are expected to accept that people of that disposition and under those conditions make the best you guys have got as a response to crime - you have got to be joking me.

Leave it to the professionals and that's not most of us any day of the week.

[evil_ash_xero]

So, how many of you people have had friends or family killed or shot, by fire arms? Just curious.

I can think of a few, off the top of my head. If I count suicides, it'd be a bit higher.

[MintyTheCat]

So, how many of you people have had friends or family killed or shot, by fire arms? Just curious.

I can think of a few, off the top of my head. If I count suicides, it'd be a bit higher.

Only people I know through the British Army shot and killed during service and my aunty was shot accidentally in the botty with a BB Gun back in the 70s.

I suppose you would account for:

1. loss of life or none fatal injury: accidental .
2. loss of life or none fatal: purposefully.
3. during service: military/police/etc.

I would then also determine if it was in an urban, rural or sub-urban setting for civilians.

There needs to be an understanding between being in service and shot and simply being a civilian though.

[Strider77]

Blacks shot by blacks? Pretty darn high I'd imagine Tim, you're talking about a marginalised, ghetto-ised race born into terrible surroundings with almost zero prospects for meaningful education or work.

You know I have a lot friends who'd find that comment offensive in upon itself and they are black.

*How dare you call me by my real name!! You've blown my secret identity FOREVER!!!!

[Ed Oscuro]

@ Minty: There is one not-really-minor wrinkle in the "leave it to the professionals" argument - Germany is smaller than one US state, and still much bigger than the UK. In the US, uneven and spread-out-development (and in some cases financial troubles, like in Detroit) leave many people with an unacceptable wait time to get help from first responders, which is part of the reason we have the "prepper" movement despite living in a mostly secure country. We also live in a country where many police forces have a warlike mentality. Until a number of things change, banning personal firearms use by private citizens is simply an unworkable proposition.

I don't think that a "one size fits all" solution to allowing or banning firearms works nationally, or even statewide, though people who keep firearms need to be in good mental health, have excellent training, and keep up on good procedures. Playing around with guns is never a good idea. If there's an area that decides against firearm ownership, people are free to leave. I don't think that's ideal, but on the other hand I didn't think it was ideal when I learned there was a scattergun pellet embedded in the outside wall below my window, and I always try to stay out of the widlerness during hunting season (i.e., outside).

[Ed Oscuro]

r/q title change to "Another day, two people killed in Russia for every one in the US"

Technically you could have a topic about less developed countries with a higher civilian death toll than the US, but it wouldn't be very interesting because not too many of them qualify. Brazil perhaps.

Or Mexico, which sits right on the southern border of the US. (We're talking per capita deaths, right?) It's not actually much higher than the US (see the Wikipedia article, sort by total per capita deaths), though, which is surprising.

[Skykid]

Blacks shot by blacks? Pretty darn high I'd imagine Tim, you're talking about a marginalised, ghetto-ised race born into terrible surroundings with almost zero prospects for meaningful education or work.

You know I have a lot friends who'd find that comment offensive in upon itself and they are black.

Only if they didn't realise it wasn't a blanket statement but a cynical commentary on the inherent racism that still manages to segregate society. It was more importantly a response to your counter that perhaps white cops shooting black people is overplayed. I don't think it is, and I think black people might find that suggestion even more offensive.

But, well, no group of individuals could beat an organisation such as a government in all probability. They are better funded, better trained, better organised, better sanctioned, better able to influence the outcome either way and above all better armed. It is a joke to think that your local shooter would stand a chance in hell against a government's potential resources.

Never underestimate strength in numbers Minty. Two thousand guys couldn't do squat, but an armed million man march could do just about anything. The big question is, how would the US or UK governments react when they're being informed they're being ousted from power by the people: would they actually resist with military force and turn their drones on civilians or would they accept they're meant to be servants of the public no longer wanted?

So, how many of you people have had friends or family killed or shot, by fire arms? Just curious.

I can think of a few, off the top of my head. If I count suicides, it'd be a bit higher.

None.

[Ed Oscuro]

This whole "everybody vs. the gubmint" canard annoys me, and it's been making the rounds of the gun websites too. It's completely absurd because most people see value in government and the populace is increasingly liberal on many issues. Why would they try to overthrow their government by force? The OWS types wouldn't try to do it with force. The whole storyline is told by the usual right-wingers who are trying to convince themselves that right and numbers are on their side "inevitably," with the knock-on effect that they get to feel less bad about massacres by nutjobs "because maybe they were pushed into it," like Ruby Ridge (which incidentally was probably a real case of it, but that's rare).

If you wish to understand gun culture in the US, never forget the '90s: Waco, Columbine, but perhaps most of all Ruby Ridge.

[Skykid]

This whole "everybody vs. the gubmint" canard annoys me, and it's been making the rounds of the gun websites too. It's completely absurd because most people see value in government

Who?

You mean they're deceived into seeing value in their government (plausible) or they're one of the wealthy ends of the populace that the government serves explicitly?

If you wish to understand gun culture in the US, never forget the '90s: Waco, Columbine, but perhaps most of all Ruby Ridge.

Don't understand the correlation or argument: those atrocities owe a debt to the US's gun culture, what else?

[MintyTheCat]

@ Minty: There is one not-really-minor wrinkle in the "leave it to the professionals" argument - Germany is smaller than one US state, and still much bigger than the UK. In the US, uneven and spread-out-development (and in some cases financial troubles, like in Detroit) leave many people with an unacceptable wait time to get help from first responders, which is part of the reason we have the "prepper" movement despite living in a mostly secure country. We also live in a country where many police forces have a warlike mentality. Until a number of things change, banning personal firearms use by private citizens is simply an unworkable proposition.

I don't think that a "one size fits all" solution to allowing or banning firearms works nationally, or even statewide, though people who keep firearms need to be in good mental health, have excellent training, and keep up on good procedures. Playing around with guns is never a good idea. If there's an area that decides against firearm ownership, people are free to leave. I don't think that's ideal, but on the other hand I didn't think it was ideal when I learned there was a scattergun pellet embedded in the outside wall below my window, and I always try to stay out of the widlerness during hunting season (i.e., outside).

Sorry, my man. This is exactly the problem you have: you cannot envisage life without guns. You live many of you in constant fear.

It is also pretty and shockingly clear that "people who keep firearms need to be in good mental health" is simply not true given the number of shootings and massacres you guys periodically experience.

I am sorry to say but you guys are not helping yourselves. We've gone through these changes in England as you have yet to go through. We used to have the right to bear arms and I dare say that goes all the way back to where your constitution came from in that many systems of law and banking for example were based on the British standards. We've gone through this, we never had the sports shops that sold guns of course as you have these days and indeed England was a very rough place only a couple of hundred years ago but, we managed to remove guns from society and we even managed to remove the death-penalty - all things that stick in the side for most of us observing America.

If you vote and live by policies of fear - and it looks like you do from where I am standing, you keep fear as your doctrine and all your policies from that point on trace back to fear.

[MintyTheCat]

If you wish to understand gun culture in the US, never forget the '90s: Waco, Columbine, but perhaps most of all Ruby Ridge.

Don't understand the correlation or argument: those atrocities owe a debt to the US's gun culture, what else?

What on Earth do you mean by this?

Were any of those people "mentally stable and sane" who bore arms, Ed Obscuro? Do you see how your requirements and basis for gun ownership fall flat on their face? This is the problem: any fool can buy a gun - this is exactly the problem.

To quote the sisters of Mercy: "Guns and cars and accidents" - exactly. The more guns you have the more deaths either warranted or unwarranted you get. Don't give me this short-sighted argument about living in the wilderness and NEEDING guns. You think you need them because you have not been cultured to the point of accepting that you can live life "without" guns.

My god, I know people who live in very rural parts of the US and Canada who do NOT own guns - are they mad? No they are not.

I can tell you I would feel less safe knowing that you guys are all running around with guns.

Any rational, sane person with half an ounce of sense will tell you that making guns available on a large scale is going to increase the number of people shot and killed.

[MintyTheCat]

But, well, no group of individuals could beat an organisation such as a government in all probability. They are better funded, better trained, better organised, better sanctioned, better able to influence the outcome either way and above all better armed. It is a joke to think that your local shooter would stand a chance in hell against a government's potential resources.

Never underestimate strength in numbers Minty. Two thousand guys couldn't do squat, but an armed million man march could do just about anything. The big question is, how would the US or UK governments react when they're being informed they're being ousted from power by the people: would they actually resist with military force and turn their drones on civilians or would they accept they're meant to be servants of the public no longer wanted?

Strength in numbers managed to bring about the break up of the DDR and it happened in 1989. There was no armed conflict though, rather people lobbied and got together. Where ever the Neo-Nazis attempt to have a demo over here many turn as opposition and most of the time the police end up having to protect the Noe-Nazis.

I am more than aware of strength in numbers.

However, I doubt you will find many volunteers who would make up a million and to be able to execute some kind of armed response.
Also, most proper armies and governments would wipe the floor with most amateurs.

The use of weapons is all well and good but it only serves an immediate use. You can attack something, hold it, but then you have to keep it. As such, weapons only get any of us so far then you find other factors become more prominent.
If you look back in history many empires became militarised having mastered agriculture with France, Germany and the UK all having large armies and such. But you then see that these large groups shrink over time as their societies became more able to control things principally through politics, economics, social systems, etc.

The last strength in numbers example would have been the Hong-Kong Demos last year. I think they handled it pretty well. The moment you try to use force against a government you are inviting your own destruction - you make it just too easy for them to knock you off as they have the means and now they have the justification and anything that occurs to an extent after that point is "your fault".

I have seen a number of demos that have been turned into riots by the police as it is just so much easier to disband a riot than a demo.

I suppose the question of whether or not a government would turn on its population boils down to its mode of governance, style and how it feels about being held accountable. China: maybe, UK: not likely, US: not likely.

[Skykid]

You wouldn't think it possible in places as oppressed as Egypt either, but it happened.