Min amount of mass shootings needed to change anything in gun laws.

[FinnFox]

As complete outsider, I wonder if there's any limit around when people start to think "enough is enough" and motivate people to change something?

Imagine 100 school shootings / day - is that even close to the point where people start to consider any meaningful changes? Also I like to see how long this situation is net positive, so doing nothing is only viable way, as there's nothing to fix.

To me this is just bonkers how US is maintaining it's self-destructive path. But anyway, I'm not forced to move into US - whatever happens in US isn't my business at all. You do you.

 

[phoenix2020]

This has already been answered by the NRA.

NRA Sets 1,000 Killed In School Shooting As Amount It Would Take For Them To Reconsider Much Of Anything

‘Yeah, Something Like 1,000 Dead Kids,’ Reports Spokesperson

www.theonion.com

 

[Individual]

As complete outsider, I wonder if there's any limit around when people start to think "enough is enough" and motivate people to change something?

Imagine 100 school shootings / day - is that even close to the point where people start to consider any meaningful changes? Also I like to see how long this situation is net positive, so doing nothing is only viable way, as there's nothing to fix.

To me this is just bonkers how US is maintaining it's self-destructive path. But anyway, I'm not forced to move into US - whatever happens in US isn't my business at all. You do you.

I have no problem with people owning guns. People who apply ANY form of weapon in a criminal act is something else.
I'd have no problem with a mandatory death penalty being applied to all those involved in the commission of a crime where someone is killed, and maybe LWOP for all those involved in the commission of a crime where a weapon is involved.

 

[Michael McMahon]

enough is enough

Mass media has both pros and cons when it comes to mass shootings. On the one hand it alerts people to the emergency and fosters empathy. Unfortunately it also means that mass shooters can receive some infamy which worsens the risk of copycat attacks. Some people like the New Zealand PM have suggested omitting the names of such shooters but even if this were enforced there'd still be a level of notoriety to the nature of the crime itself. So even if the public didn't know the perpetrator there could nonetheless be other terrorists that get inspired by it and commit similar atrocities. This is one reason why there weren't as many mass killings in the 19th century. So even if we were to address the technological mismatch with muskets back then, there'll still have been an irreversible shift in collective psychology that renders modern people more vulnerable to terrorism. Bringing today's society back to muskets instead won't solve America's gun crime epidemic.

To get back to your question I don't see how America can reduce mass shootings without some amount of gun control. During wars people can get desensitised to large numbers of casualties because of the frequency of attacks. Should domestic crime be viewed like the Vietnam War in which high daily casualties among American troops were tolerated? Is the tiny risk of tyranny in America really on a par with the Cold War and the mindset of nuclear Armegeddon? I think not.

"Jacinda Ardern has said she will render the person accused over the Christchurch terrorist attack “nameless” and urged the public to speak the victims’ names instead."

Ardern says she will never speak name of Christchurch suspect

New Zealand leader calls on public to speak names of mosque attack victims instead

www.theguardian.com

 

[Noodlegawd]

As complete outsider, I wonder if there's any limit around when people start to think "enough is enough" and motivate people to change something?

Imagine 100 school shootings / day - is that even close to the point where people start to consider any meaningful changes? Also I like to see how long this situation is net positive, so doing nothing is only viable way, as there's nothing to fix.

To me this is just bonkers how US is maintaining it's self-destructive path. But anyway, I'm not forced to move into US - whatever happens in US isn't my business at all. You do you.

Maybe we can use 10,000 deaths per year caused by speeding, and another 10,000 deaths per year caused by drunk drivers, with no serious efforts on the part of Democrats to do anything about it, as a yardstick.

To put it in perspective, about a thousand people have been killed in mass shootings in the US in the last 40 years. On a per capita basis, that's less than the number of people killed in mass murders in France during the same time period.

So let's talk when the number gets anywhere near as high as the leadfoot death toll. Deal?

 

[Michael McMahon]

Authoritarianism exists on a wide spectrum of severity. There have been far more mildy undemocratic states in history than there were genocidal regimes. So even if America did slip into dictatorship, what are the chances of a Holocaust or Rwandan-sized genocide? Very minuscule. It'd be far more like that a tyrannical US president would merely overstay their term in office by running for a third time rather than order an ethnic cleansing.

 

[HIP56948]

Things might change if private schools (wealthy parents) started to have incidents of mass murder. As it is, the killing of the lower class has been going on
for several years. It's just a much slower death. The one thing that most Americans just can't get through their heads is: A good share of the extremely wealthy don't care.
Most Americans DO care but a part of them do not understand the workings of people who have no empathy. It's hard to understand.
They have no reference in their brains to associate with. (I certainly wouldn't do this but>> It's like trying to explain how an orgasm feels to a 5 year old.
The child would have NO reference to equate their feelings, as to what you are talking about.

 

[Michael McMahon]

"On 16 December 2014, six gunmen affiliated with the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) conducted a terrorist attack on the Army Public School in the northwestern Pakistani city of Peshawar. The militants, all of whom were foreign nationals... entered the school and opened fire on school staff and children, killing 149 people including 132 schoolchildren ranging between eight and eighteen years of age."

2014 Peshawar school massacre - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It doesn't take a sophisticated terror organisation to gather a group of 6 mass shooters. An average group of friends or a family could all have 6 or more members. What if a cult leader became demonic and brainwashed people into carrying out school shootings? America would then be at risk of an attack similar to the size of the Pakistan school shooting.

"900 Americans – members of a San Francisco-based religious group called the Peoples Temple – died after drinking poison at the urging of their leader, the Reverend Jim Jones, in a secluded South American jungle settlement."

Jonestown: 13 Things You Should Know About Cult Massacre

Tragedy took place under direction of cult leader Jim Jones, in which 909 members of the Peoples Temple died by murder-suicide in 1978.

www.rollingstone.com

 

[HangLow]

Things might change if private schools (wealthy parents) started to have incidents of mass murder.
As it is, the killing of the lower class has been going on for several years. It's just a much slower death.
The one thing that most Americans just can't get through their heads is: A good share of the extremely wealthy don't care.
Most Americans DO care but a part of them do not understand the workings of people who have no empathy.
It's hard to understand. They have no reference in their brains to associate with. (I certainly wouldn't do this but>>
It's like trying to explain how an orgasm feels to a 5 year old.
The child would have NO reference to equate their feelings, as to what you are talking about.

​

 

[Lursa]

I have no problem with people owning guns. People who apply ANY form of weapon in a criminal act is something else.
I'd have no problem with a mandatory death penalty being applied to all those involved in the commission of a crime where someone is killed, and maybe LWOP for all those involved in the commission of a crime where a weapon is involved.

I agree with much of that, but in the case of mass shooters, it seems that most expect to die anyway. Either by LE or suicide.

 

[Individual]

I agree with much of that, but in the case of mass shooters, it seems that most expect to die anyway. Either by LE or suicide.

I would hope so.

 

[Lursa]

I would hope so.

It wouldnt act as a deterrent for that then.

 

[jamesrage]

As complete outsider, I wonder if there's any limit around when people start to think "enough is enough" and motivate people to change something?

Imagine 100 school shootings / day - is that even close to the point where people start to consider any meaningful changes? Also I like to see how long this situation is net positive, so doing nothing is only viable way, as there's nothing to fix.

To me this is just bonkers how US is maintaining it's self-destructive path. But anyway, I'm not forced to move into US - whatever happens in US isn't my business at all. You do you.

Mass shootings don't happen in the frequency anti-2nd amendment trash claim they do. Mass shootings are typically four or more people shot to death not counting the mass shooter offing himself or suicide by cop. Anti-2nd amendment trash typically like to use anybody shot regardless if no one dies or even count the mass shooter offing himself or suicide by cop so they can fraudulently inflate the numbers like they do when they say gun violence deaths instead of gun homicides so they can inflate the numbers with suicides i.e . self inflicted deaths. Murders from mass shootings equal only a fraction of murders without the use of a fire arm in our country.

 

[Crovax]

As complete outsider, I wonder if there's any limit around when people start to think "enough is enough" and motivate people to change something?

Imagine 100 school shootings / day - is that even close to the point where people start to consider any meaningful changes? Also I like to see how long this situation is net positive, so doing nothing is only viable way, as there's nothing to fix.

To me this is just bonkers how US is maintaining it's self-destructive path. But anyway, I'm not forced to move into US - whatever happens in US isn't my business at all. You do you.

Ban gub and there would then be 100 school stabbings per day. We need to treat the disease not the symptom

 

[Individual]

It wouldnt act as a deterrent for that then.

There will ALWAYS be those who commit crimes, eliminating the possibility of repeat offenders is a step in the right direction.

 

[MamboDervish]

Maybe we can use 10,000 deaths per year caused by speeding, and another 10,000 deaths per year caused by drunk drivers, with no serious efforts on the part of Democrats to do anything about it, as a yardstick.

To put it in perspective, about a thousand people have been killed in mass shootings in the US in the last 40 years. On a per capita basis, that's less than the number of people killed in mass murders in France during the same time period.

So let's talk when the number gets anywhere near as high as the leadfoot death toll. Deal?

No deal. In fact, it's ****ing absurd, and most intelligent people would be embarrassed attempting to conflate transportation deaths with gun deaths, for reasons that should be obvious to any thinking person.

 

[Napoleon]

If Congress actually solved problems then they’d be out of election talking points. The Senate Majority Leader has already come out and said that no gun control legislation will be introduced because the Democratic Party wants to use it as a cudgel in the November midterms.

 

[JMB802]

As complete outsider, I wonder if there's any limit around when people start to think "enough is enough" and motivate people to change something?

Imagine 100 school shootings / day - is that even close to the point where people start to consider any meaningful changes? Also I like to see how long this situation is net positive, so doing nothing is only viable way, as there's nothing to fix.

To me this is just bonkers how US is maintaining it's self-destructive path. But anyway, I'm not forced to move into US - whatever happens in US isn't my business at all. You do you.

I just said this in another thread.

Sadly, what I think will happen is that nothing will happen until mass shootings become so commonplace that those personally impacted will cause the scales to tip.

Off the top of my head, I can think of only one person of the hundreds of parents of murdered children over the past 10 years or so that still defends our gun policies.

 

[Noodlegawd]

No deal. In fact, it's ****ing absurd, and most intelligent people would be embarrassed attempting to conflate transportation deaths with gun deaths, for reasons that should be obvious to any thinking person.

Name one reason. Is it that children being crushed to death in car wrecks don't matter as much children who are shot to death? Or is it that you don't like the solution, because it would actually apply to you, and not just to some dumb redneck who spends all day stroking his penis replacement?

 

[MamboDervish]

Name one reason. Is it that children being crushed to death in car wrecks don't matter as much children who are shot to death? Or is it that you don't like the solution, because it would actually apply to you, and not just to some dumb redneck who spends all day stroking his penis replacement?

Like I said, it should be obvious to any thinking person. Ordinarily I wouldn't bother to hold anyone's hand on something so obvious, but since you seem to be challenged within that framework, I'll provide a few hints to get you started.

Cars and trucks are called transportation.
Guns are called weapons.

Look up the definitions of the two highlighted words above. Chew on that for awhile, and if you can't still can't digest the difference, feel free to get back to me.

 

[Lursa]

There will ALWAYS be those who commit crimes, eliminating the possibility of repeat offenders is a step in the right direction.

Yes but we're discussing a specific crime...mass shootings. And these POS's generally plan their shootings and many expect to die. And for those that to it on the spur of the moment, also not a deterrent.

For other crimes? Maybe.

 

[Lursa]

Like I said, it should be obvious to any thinking person. Ordinarily I wouldn't bother to hold anyone's hand on something so obvious, but since you seem to be challenged within that framework, I'll provide a few hints to get you started.

Cars and trucks are called transportation.
Guns are called weapons.

Look up the definitions of the two highlighted words above. Chew on that for awhile, and if you can't still can't digest the difference, feel free to get back to me.

He's got a valid point. Please make the distinctions you think are pertinent. Your classification above is meaningless, unless you can explain why that classification makes a difference.

 

[noonereal]

I have no problem with people owning guns. People who apply ANY form of weapon in a criminal act is something else.
I'd have no problem with a mandatory death penalty being applied to all those involved in the commission of a crime where someone is killed, and maybe LWOP for all those involved in the commission of a crime where a weapon is involved.

And how about all the accidents , suicides and threats?

 

[mike2810]

As complete outsider, I wonder if there's any limit around when people start to think "enough is enough" and motivate people to change something?

Imagine 100 school shootings / day - is that even close to the point where people start to consider any meaningful changes? Also I like to see how long this situation is net positive, so doing nothing is only viable way, as there's nothing to fix.

To me this is just bonkers how US is maintaining it's self-destructive path. But anyway, I'm not forced to move into US - whatever happens in US isn't my business at all. You do you.

The real question is what causes the person to do the mass shooting? Would eliminating the weapon stop the person from killing the people or would they just change the type of destructive weapon used. For example, if a person has no access to the ak style rifle would they just change to using home made bombs

imo, the weapon is not the problem, it is the person.

 

[Glitch]

As complete outsider, I wonder if there's any limit around when people start to think "enough is enough" and motivate people to change something?

Imagine 100 school shootings / day - is that even close to the point where people start to consider any meaningful changes? Also I like to see how long this situation is net positive, so doing nothing is only viable way, as there's nothing to fix.

To me this is just bonkers how US is maintaining it's self-destructive path. But anyway, I'm not forced to move into US - whatever happens in US isn't my business at all. You do you.

Only a communist, or a so-called "progressive," could believe that upholding the inherent rights of individuals is a "self-destructive path."

It is the one thing that makes the US unique among nations. No other nation on the planet acknowledges and protects the inherent rights of others, despite the attempts by leftist filth to trample all over those rights at every opportunity that arises.