Mass Murders[W:29]

[KevinKohler]

Good evening, folks. Let's talk about mass shootings. Please, no mention of politics, if you can help it.

To get the ball rolling, I'm going to present one fact, and a bunch opinions.

Fact : Crime requires three criteria to be filled to happen. Means, motive, and opportunity. Remove one of those criteria, and no crime happens. Not on purpose, anyway. People will speed with no motive, if they don't realize they're doing it. But I digress.

Mass murderers require a means, a motive, and an opportunity. To prevent them, one of those criteria has to be eleminated.

I'll start with means, as that is, in my opinion, the elephant in the room. Gun control. Or is it the elephant some believe it to be? Remove means for shooters by removing their ability to acquire the tools, guns. Simple, right? But let me ask you, is that OK? To have people running around with a desire to kill, but no ability? That's a tad creepy, IMO, and unrealistic besides. Guns aren't the only way to kill, and in point of fact, in the last ten to twenty years, aren't the most common means used to commit mass murders. Bombs were, followed by arson, then guns, then automobiles. There's also poison. So, is this the best way to prevent any type of crime? Trying to address the means of a would be criminal?

Motive. The why of it all. Why does someone want to commit mass murder? Even more difficult, IMO, as that answer is going to vary on a case by case basis. I think within this section, we should also address another why. Why guns in cases of school shootings, or other mass shootings? Why not gasoline and matches? Bleach and ammonia in a locked up cafeteria? Or poison in the food? Simply not thought of? I think that guns are used, because, consciously or not, these particular people want to SEE. You set a fire, unless you're willing to burn with your victims, you don't witness the carnage of your actions. You don't SEE the faces. Same with bombs, or whatever else. No, mass shooters, specifically, want to SEE their victims die. It's personal, it's highly emotionally charged. Visceral. And again, how to address the over all motive? Bullying? Violent entertainment? Medication? Stress? And why are schools so often the target? Ease of access, or because that's where their victims of choice are? Too many possible factors to even begin to try to control them all, IMO. No, removing this criteria is, IMO, not quite possible.

Last, but not least...opportunity. A person with the means and motive, but no opportunity, is unable to carry out their desired crime. This is, in my opinion, our best option. Remove, reduce, and minimize the possible opportunities, at least at schools. Impossible to do for all the possible targets of mass murder...but schools, at the very least, are somewhat under public control. So, what are their opportunities, and how do we remove them? How do they get into the schools? Once in, what can be done to stop them? Would having armed resistance put up a road block for them? The threat of which would possibly prevent the school from being targeted in the first place? Hard to say.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

Re: Mass Murders

I can guess that the gun cult will not entertain any solution that does not involve more guns.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Re: Mass Murders

This society is coming unglued as a result of more than a generation of neglect.

It is time to start caring, it is time to get on the right side of history.

THE INTELLIGENTSIA HAVE FAILED!

 

[KevinKohler]

Re: Mass Murders

I can guess that the gun cult will not entertain any solution that does not involve more guns.

I would guess you're correct, but I would also pose a question....why is it so common now? Prior to Columbine, this was rare. Guns are in the same supply now as they were then...so what's changed, what's different? And why guns, as opposed to more effective means?

 

[Maccabee]

Re: Mass Murders

Posting a mass shooting thread on a politics debate forum and asking for posters to not mention politics is like sweeping the Pacific Ocean dry with a broom.

 

[KevinKohler]

Re: Mass Murders

Posting a mass shooting thread on a politics debate forum and asking for posters to not mention politics is like sweeping the Pacific Ocean dry with a broom.

Yeah, to be honest, I wasn't sure where to put this. My OP isn't really about gun control, but nor do I want it to become a D vs R thread...

 

[HenryChinaski]

Re: Mass Murders

This society is coming unglued as a result of more than a generation of neglect.

It is time to start caring, it is time to get on the right side of history.

THE INTELLIGENTSIA HAVE FAILED!

Wow this reminds me of something on some of those motivational posters that you would see in corporate offices in the late 90s with sunrises and waterfalls in the background. Did you write those?

 

[HenryChinaski]

Re: Mass Murders

Yeah, to be honest, I wasn't sure where to put this. My OP isn't really about gun control, but nor do I want it to become a D vs R thread...

My personal opinion and there’s those here that disagree. I suspect there’s a correlation between these shootings and prescription medications.

 

[JuiceJS]

Re: Mass Murders

So why is it we only care about mass shootings??

I'm tired of people not talking about the mass shooting in Chicago... when I can almost guarantee most of those firearms are illegally purchased.

I remember in middle school kids telling me they can get me a gun for the low.

The problem is not guns.

You want to take everyone's guns... but what y'all don't understand is that it's not going to stop the majority of people using them for violence.

You guys hide behind mass shooting because it fits your narrative, but are afraid to discuss gun control and yell racist when it comes to black on black shootings.

I grew up in a small city majority black with a high gun violence rate, I knew and know people that never got out and live the same cycle.. in and out of jail.. all of them carry guns illegally.

 

[JuiceJS]

Re: Mass Murders

Good evening, folks. Let's talk about mass shootings. Please, no mention of politics, if you can help it.

To get the ball rolling, I'm going to present one fact, and a bunch opinions.

Fact : Crime requires three criteria to be filled to happen. Means, motive, and opportunity. Remove one of those criteria, and no crime happens. Not on purpose, anyway. People will speed with no motive, if they don't realize they're doing it. But I digress.

Mass murderers require a means, a motive, and an opportunity. To prevent them, one of those criteria has to be eleminated.

I'll start with means, as that is, in my opinion, the elephant in the room. Gun control. Or is it the elephant some believe it to be? Remove means for shooters by removing their ability to acquire the tools, guns. Simple, right? But let me ask you, is that OK? To have people running around with a desire to kill, but no ability? That's a tad creepy, IMO, and unrealistic besides. Guns aren't the only way to kill, and in point of fact, in the last ten to twenty years, aren't the most common means used to commit mass murders. Bombs were, followed by arson, then guns, then automobiles. There's also poison. So, is this the best way to prevent any type of crime? Trying to address the means of a would be criminal?

Motive. The why of it all. Why does someone want to commit mass murder? Even more difficult, IMO, as that answer is going to vary on a case by case basis. I think within this section, we should also address another why. Why guns in cases of school shootings, or other mass shootings? Why not gasoline and matches? Bleach and ammonia in a locked up cafeteria? Or poison in the food? Simply not thought of? I think that guns are used, because, consciously or not, these particular people want to SEE. You set a fire, unless you're willing to burn with your victims, you don't witness the carnage of your actions. You don't SEE the faces. Same with bombs, or whatever else. No, mass shooters, specifically, want to SEE their victims die. It's personal, it's highly emotionally charged. Visceral. And again, how to address the over all motive? Bullying? Violent entertainment? Medication? Stress? And why are schools so often the target? Ease of access, or because that's where their victims of choice are? Too many possible factors to even begin to try to control them all, IMO. No, removing this criteria is, IMO, not quite possible.

Last, but not least...opportunity. A person with the means and motive, but no opportunity, is unable to carry out their desired crime. This is, in my opinion, our best option. Remove, reduce, and minimize the possible opportunities, at least at schools. Impossible to do for all the possible targets of mass murder...but schools, at the very least, are somewhat under public control. So, what are their opportunities, and how do we remove them? How do they get into the schools? Once in, what can be done to stop them? Would having armed resistance put up a road block for them? The threat of which would possibly prevent the school from being targeted in the first place? Hard to say.

"Please, no mention of politics, if you can help it"

a few sentences later

"I'll start with means, as that is, in my opinion, the elephant in the room. Gun control."

 

[KevinKohler]

Re: Mass Murders

So why is it we only care about mass shootings??

I'm tired of people not talking about the mass shooting in Chicago... when I can almost guarantee most of those firearms are illegally purchased.

I remember in middle school kids telling me they can get me a gun for the low.

The problem is not guns.

You want to take everyone's guns... but what y'all don't understand is that it's not going to stop the majority of people using them for violence.

You guys hide behind mass shooting because it fits your narrative, but are afraid to discuss gun control and yell racist when it comes to black on black shootings.

I grew up in a small city majority black with a high gun violence rate, I knew and know people that never got out and live the same cycle.. in and out of jail.. all of them carry guns illegally.

That's a entirely different topic, called poverty driven crime.

Mass shooters, like the one in FL, don't share any similarities with what you're describing. Also, check your assumptions at the door, I'm not for gun control, as I don't think it would change a thing.

 

[KevinKohler]

Re: Mass Murders

"Please, no mention of politics, if you can help it"

a few sentences later

"I'll start with means, as that is, in my opinion, the elephant in the room. Gun control."

Perhaps I should have said partisanship, then. It's not a dem vs rep thing, it truly isn't.

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: Mass Murders

Good evening, folks. Let's talk about mass shootings. Please, no mention of politics, if you can help it.

To get the ball rolling, I'm going to present one fact, and a bunch opinions.

Fact : Crime requires three criteria to be filled to happen. Means, motive, and opportunity. Remove one of those criteria, and no crime happens. Not on purpose, anyway. People will speed with no motive, if they don't realize they're doing it. But I digress.

Mass murderers require a means, a motive, and an opportunity. To prevent them, one of those criteria has to be eleminated.

I'll start with means, as that is, in my opinion, the elephant in the room. Gun control. Or is it the elephant some believe it to be? Remove means for shooters by removing their ability to acquire the tools, guns. Simple, right? But let me ask you, is that OK? To have people running around with a desire to kill, but no ability? That's a tad creepy, IMO, and unrealistic besides. Guns aren't the only way to kill, and in point of fact, in the last ten to twenty years, aren't the most common means used to commit mass murders. Bombs were, followed by arson, then guns, then automobiles. There's also poison. So, is this the best way to prevent any type of crime? Trying to address the means of a would be criminal?

Motive. The why of it all. Why does someone want to commit mass murder? Even more difficult, IMO, as that answer is going to vary on a case by case basis. I think within this section, we should also address another why. Why guns in cases of school shootings, or other mass shootings? Why not gasoline and matches? Bleach and ammonia in a locked up cafeteria? Or poison in the food? Simply not thought of? I think that guns are used, because, consciously or not, these particular people want to SEE. You set a fire, unless you're willing to burn with your victims, you don't witness the carnage of your actions. You don't SEE the faces. Same with bombs, or whatever else. No, mass shooters, specifically, want to SEE their victims die. It's personal, it's highly emotionally charged. Visceral. And again, how to address the over all motive? Bullying? Violent entertainment? Medication? Stress? And why are schools so often the target? Ease of access, or because that's where their victims of choice are? Too many possible factors to even begin to try to control them all, IMO. No, removing this criteria is, IMO, not quite possible.

Last, but not least...opportunity. A person with the means and motive, but no opportunity, is unable to carry out their desired crime. This is, in my opinion, our best option. Remove, reduce, and minimize the possible opportunities, at least at schools. Impossible to do for all the possible targets of mass murder...but schools, at the very least, are somewhat under public control. So, what are their opportunities, and how do we remove them? How do they get into the schools? Once in, what can be done to stop them? Would having armed resistance put up a road block for them? The threat of which would possibly prevent the school from being targeted in the first place? Hard to say.

We should take dangerous people off the streets before they commit these crimes. How many warning signs do we need before we learn our lesson? I'm so sick of hearing the news where something bad happened (not necessarily MASS murder) and then we find out the person has been in and out of jail numerous times or, as in this case, there were warning signs all over the place. Hell, the school had banned him from bringing in backpacks because they found ammunition in them and then the school eventually expelled this person, not to mention several other warning signs. We live in a society where we let dangerous people roam free and commit mass murder and then we throw the book at them afterwards, assuming the person is still alive. We need to throw the book at them beforewards instead of afterwards.

 

[independentusa]

Re: Mass Murders

Good evening, folks. Let's talk about mass shootings. Please, no mention of politics, if you can help it.

To get the ball rolling, I'm going to present one fact, and a bunch opinions.

Fact : Crime requires three criteria to be filled to happen. Means, motive, and opportunity. Remove one of those criteria, and no crime happens. Not on purpose, anyway. People will speed with no motive, if they don't realize they're doing it. But I digress.

Mass murderers require a means, a motive, and an opportunity. To prevent them, one of those criteria has to be eleminated.

I'll start with means, as that is, in my opinion, the elephant in the room. Gun control. Or is it the elephant some believe it to be? Remove means for shooters by removing their ability to acquire the tools, guns. Simple, right? But let me ask you, is that OK? To have people running around with a desire to kill, but no ability? That's a tad creepy, IMO, and unrealistic besides. Guns aren't the only way to kill, and in point of fact, in the last ten to twenty years, aren't the most common means used to commit mass murders. Bombs were, followed by arson, then guns, then automobiles. There's also poison. So, is this the best way to prevent any type of crime? Trying to address the means of a would be criminal?

Motive. The why of it all. Why does someone want to commit mass murder? Even more difficult, IMO, as that answer is going to vary on a case by case basis. I think within this section, we should also address another why. Why guns in cases of school shootings, or other mass shootings? Why not gasoline and matches? Bleach and ammonia in a locked up cafeteria? Or poison in the food? Simply not thought of? I think that guns are used, because, consciously or not, these particular people want to SEE. You set a fire, unless you're willing to burn with your victims, you don't witness the carnage of your actions. You don't SEE the faces. Same with bombs, or whatever else. No, mass shooters, specifically, want to SEE their victims die. It's personal, it's highly emotionally charged. Visceral. And again, how to address the over all motive? Bullying? Violent entertainment? Medication? Stress? And why are schools so often the target? Ease of access, or because that's where their victims of choice are? Too many possible factors to even begin to try to control them all, IMO. No, removing this criteria is, IMO, not quite possible.

Last, but not least...opportunity. A person with the means and motive, but no opportunity, is unable to carry out their desired crime. This is, in my opinion, our best option. Remove, reduce, and minimize the possible opportunities, at least at schools. Impossible to do for all the possible targets of mass murder...but schools, at the very least, are somewhat under public control. So, what are their opportunities, and how do we remove them? How do they get into the schools? Once in, what can be done to stop them? Would having armed resistance put up a road block for them? The threat of which would possibly prevent the school from being targeted in the first place? Hard to say.

Let us look at the last 8 or 10 mass shootings in this country and see what they have common, the AR15. That's right, They were all perpetrated by just one gun, the AR15. The so called civilian version of the military assault rifle. The difference is that one is fully automatic, the military version, and one is semi-automatic, the AR15. What does semi-automatic mean, it means it can shoot 45 rounds a minute without any additions like a bump stock, which are still legal.

 

[KevinKohler]

Re: Mass Murders

Let us look at the last 8 or 10 mass shootings in this country and see what they have common, the AR15. That's right, They were all perpetrated by just one gun, the AR15. The so called civilian version of the military assault rifle. The difference is that one is fully automatic, the military version, and one is semi-automatic, the AR15. What does semi-automatic mean, it means it can shoot 45 rounds a minute without any additions like a bump stock, which are still legal.

OK.

Sandy hook was done with a regular old .22 rifle. VA tech, hand guns.

All semi auto.

 

[JuiceJS]

Re: Mass Murders

Let us look at the last 8 or 10 mass shootings in this country and see what they have common, the AR15. That's right, They were all perpetrated by just one gun, the AR15. The so called civilian version of the military assault rifle. The difference is that one is fully automatic, the military version, and one is semi-automatic, the AR15. What does semi-automatic mean, it means it can shoot 45 rounds a minute without any additions like a bump stock, which are still legal.

Misinformation. The M16A1 is fully automatic, true enough. It was phased out of the US Military years ago in favor of the M16A2 which was also later phased out in favor of the M4.

The important thing to know about this is that all ARs built on the AR15 frame (which all listed above are) currently in use only offer a 3-round burst and are not capable of fully-automatic fire. The only version of the AR15 that was (M16A1) has been phased out for over two decades.

 

[LowDown]

Re: Mass Murders

My personal opinion and there’s those here that disagree. I suspect there’s a correlation between these shootings and prescription medications.

Yes, the shooter is seriously messed up in the head and was on prescription meds for his emotional problems. His mother home schooled him because he was too fragile to go to school, then his mother died. SNAP!

And, despite a whole crap-ton load of warning signs, nobody could or would step in to prevent this.

And some people think that if he had not had a gun then he wouldn't have killed anyone. I don't think that's right. I think he'd have found another way.

 

[hado117]

Re: Mass Murders

Good evening, folks. Let's talk about mass shootings. Please, no mention of politics, if you can help it.

To get the ball rolling, I'm going to present one fact, and a bunch opinions.

Fact : Crime requires three criteria to be filled to happen. Means, motive, and opportunity. Remove one of those criteria, and no crime happens. Not on purpose, anyway. People will speed with no motive, if they don't realize they're doing it. But I digress.

Mass murderers require a means, a motive, and an opportunity. To prevent them, one of those criteria has to be eleminated.

I'll start with means, as that is, in my opinion, the elephant in the room. Gun control. Or is it the elephant some believe it to be? Remove means for shooters by removing their ability to acquire the tools, guns. Simple, right? But let me ask you, is that OK? To have people running around with a desire to kill, but no ability? That's a tad creepy, IMO, and unrealistic besides. Guns aren't the only way to kill, and in point of fact, in the last ten to twenty years, aren't the most common means used to commit mass murders. Bombs were, followed by arson, then guns, then automobiles. There's also poison. So, is this the best way to prevent any type of crime? Trying to address the means of a would be criminal?

Motive. The why of it all. Why does someone want to commit mass murder? Even more difficult, IMO, as that answer is going to vary on a case by case basis. I think within this section, we should also address another why. Why guns in cases of school shootings, or other mass shootings? Why not gasoline and matches? Bleach and ammonia in a locked up cafeteria? Or poison in the food? Simply not thought of? I think that guns are used, because, consciously or not, these particular people want to SEE. You set a fire, unless you're willing to burn with your victims, you don't witness the carnage of your actions. You don't SEE the faces. Same with bombs, or whatever else. No, mass shooters, specifically, want to SEE their victims die. It's personal, it's highly emotionally charged. Visceral. And again, how to address the over all motive? Bullying? Violent entertainment? Medication? Stress? And why are schools so often the target? Ease of access, or because that's where their victims of choice are? Too many possible factors to even begin to try to control them all, IMO. No, removing this criteria is, IMO, not quite possible.

Last, but not least...opportunity. A person with the means and motive, but no opportunity, is unable to carry out their desired crime. This is, in my opinion, our best option. Remove, reduce, and minimize the possible opportunities, at least at schools. Impossible to do for all the possible targets of mass murder...but schools, at the very least, are somewhat under public control. So, what are their opportunities, and how do we remove them? How do they get into the schools? Once in, what can be done to stop them? Would having armed resistance put up a road block for them? The threat of which would possibly prevent the school from being targeted in the first place? Hard to say.

ask joe m.

 

[KevinKohler]

Re: Mass Murders

We should take dangerous people off the streets before they commit these crimes. How many warning signs do we need before we learn our lesson? I'm so sick of hearing the news where something bad happened (not necessarily MASS murder) and then we find out the person has been in and out of jail numerous times or, as in this case, there were warning signs all over the place. Hell, the school had banned him from bringing in backpacks because they found ammunition in them and then the school eventually expelled this person, not to mention several other warning signs. We live in a society where we let dangerous people roam free and commit mass murder and then we throw the book at them afterwards, assuming the person is still alive. We need to throw the book at them beforewards instead of afterwards.

Not a solution. We can't lock up American citizens because they MIGHT become dangerous.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Re: Mass Murders

I can guess that the gun cult will not entertain any solution that does not involve more guns.

We don't need more "good guys with guns" to kill all the spree killers. That kind of ****'s what got us here.

We need enough "good guys with guns" to kill our toxic ****ing gun culture. A big gun can't make you a big man when everyone else has one and nobody cares.

Teach insecure little boys that being a man is about loving passionately and lifting people up, and we can start selling handguns in vending machines because they'll never leave their holsters.

 

[Rob Larrikin]

Re: Mass Murders

Good evening, folks. Let's talk about mass shootings. Please, no mention of politics, if you can help it.

To get the ball rolling, I'm going to present one fact, and a bunch opinions.

Fact : Crime requires three criteria to be filled to happen. Means, motive, and opportunity. Remove one of those criteria, and no crime happens. Not on purpose, anyway. People will speed with no motive, if they don't realize they're doing it. But I digress.

Mass murderers require a means, a motive, and an opportunity. To prevent them, one of those criteria has to be eleminated.

I'll start with means, as that is, in my opinion, the elephant in the room. Gun control. Or is it the elephant some believe it to be? Remove means for shooters by removing their ability to acquire the tools, guns. Simple, right? But let me ask you, is that OK? To have people running around with a desire to kill, but no ability? That's a tad creepy, IMO, and unrealistic besides. Guns aren't the only way to kill, and in point of fact, in the last ten to twenty years, aren't the most common means used to commit mass murders. Bombs were, followed by arson, then guns, then automobiles. There's also poison. So, is this the best way to prevent any type of crime? Trying to address the means of a would be criminal?

Motive. The why of it all. Why does someone want to commit mass murder? Even more difficult, IMO, as that answer is going to vary on a case by case basis. I think within this section, we should also address another why. Why guns in cases of school shootings, or other mass shootings? Why not gasoline and matches? Bleach and ammonia in a locked up cafeteria? Or poison in the food? Simply not thought of? I think that guns are used, because, consciously or not, these particular people want to SEE. You set a fire, unless you're willing to burn with your victims, you don't witness the carnage of your actions. You don't SEE the faces. Same with bombs, or whatever else. No, mass shooters, specifically, want to SEE their victims die. It's personal, it's highly emotionally charged. Visceral. And again, how to address the over all motive? Bullying? Violent entertainment? Medication? Stress? And why are schools so often the target? Ease of access, or because that's where their victims of choice are? Too many possible factors to even begin to try to control them all, IMO. No, removing this criteria is, IMO, not quite possible.

Last, but not least...opportunity. A person with the means and motive, but no opportunity, is unable to carry out their desired crime. This is, in my opinion, our best option. Remove, reduce, and minimize the possible opportunities, at least at schools. Impossible to do for all the possible targets of mass murder...but schools, at the very least, are somewhat under public control. So, what are their opportunities, and how do we remove them? How do they get into the schools? Once in, what can be done to stop them? Would having armed resistance put up a road block for them? The threat of which would possibly prevent the school from being targeted in the first place? Hard to say.

This is the kind of thing I used to do when I was in college. It’s called ‘overthinking an issue’. Look more laterally at the issue, not vertically. So what’s the reason for school massacres?

1) Discipline was removed from schools and families. This created millions of murder brats.
2) Guns are easily available.
3) Murder brats play realistic computer games, shooting the crap out of people all day long
4) Media make copycat killers famous

How do you stop this from happening? Banning assault rifles and such will help, but mostly you need to bring discipline of kids back into schools and families. Parents should ban their kids from playing computer games. The media needs to stop making heroes out of copycat killers.

The problem will be solved then, but the finished results will take about 40 years. By then the school slayings will dry up.

 

[Moderate Right]

Re: Mass Murders

Not a solution. We can't lock up American citizens because they MIGHT become dangerous.

So, you're saying that the grandmother in Washington State who reported to the police that her own grandson had been plotting a school shooting - we can't do a damn thing to him because he hadn't done anything yet? So, you're saying that it was perfectly OK for the FBI to ignore warnings about the Florida shooter, one from a person in Mississippi, and one from someone close to Cruz, because Cruz hadn't done anything yet so, no need to investigate because you couldn't do anything to him anyway?

 

[Barnacle]

Re: Mass Murders

I could believe in extreme gun control ... if Chicago could go down to maybe no more than 5 or so gun deaths a year.

Somebody show me, please, that extreme gun control will take the guns from the bad boys.

 

[JuiceJS]

Re: Mass Murders

That's a entirely different topic, called poverty driven crime.

Mass shooters, like the one in FL, don't share any similarities with what you're describing. Also, check your assumptions at the door, I'm not for gun control, as I don't think it would change a thing.

One similarity off the top, they have zero issues with taking human life.

That's not the guns fault.

The argument seems to be often that less lives could be taken with different weapons (sometimes) but the real issue is that these people have no problems killing. How do you stop this?

 

[KevinKohler]

Re: Mass Murders

So, you're saying that the grandmother in Washington State who reported to the police that her own grandson had been plotting a school shooting - we can't do a damn thing to him because he hadn't done anything yet? So, you're saying that it was perfectly OK for the FBI to ignore warnings about the Florida shooter, one from a person in Mississippi, and one from someone close to Cruz, because Cruz hadn't done anything yet so, no need to investigate because you couldn't do anything to him anyway?

Actually, planning IS a crime, and in that case, something can be done, but only temporarily, and convicting is nearly impossible.