Another mass shooting

[DCHawk1]

Won't lie, at first I thought you and Tdub were joking.

sigh.

Without wasting any more time on this subject to go back and look, is there any chance the amount of umbrage expressed by you and DC for going on days now due to a comment by Sparko approaches or exceeds the amount of outrage you've expressed about the shooting of 22 and killing of 1 itself?
Because, it's beginning to seem like it.

It's a subject that for me constitutes an enormous part of my personal (and professional) frustration with our political climate. Everything -- even the tragedy of one murder and two dozen injuries at a fucking Super Bowl parade -- turns immediately into a question of friend and enemy groups.

This is DIFFERENT, BTW, from policy. Shootings necessarily bring thoughts and complaints about policy. That's understandable. But identity politics is something different altogether. It's about aligning oneself in a contest of values against those whose interests one sees as inimical and whose values one despises. The automatic presumption that the perpetrator of an evil act is your political nemesis -- based on next to nothing -- is ugly and destructive, whether it comes from Left or Right.

It's the Total State, and it ends poorly.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

[DCHawk1]

[TDub]

ok so DC said it more eloquently than I did, but thays essentially what I was attempting to get at

[KUTradition]

inimical is a fun word

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

What is the one thing all "mass" shooters have in common?
Yet, we choose to focus on, and label them, and find fault in who/what they are in regards to race, nationality, religion, gender identity, politics, upbringing, environment, etc., etc. etc.
Guess what? "Mass" shooters come in all shapes and sizes and all have differences of some kind/type.
Maybe instead of focusing on what differences identify them as people, we focus more on what they all have in common?
That's what's most fucked up to me.

[jfish26]

To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives:

We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. Although assualt [sic] weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime.

Every major law enforcement organization in America and dozens of leading labor, medical, religious, civil rights and civic groups support such a ban. Most importantly, poll after poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly support a ban on assault weapons. A 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 77% of Americans support a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47.

The 1989 import ban resulted in an impressive 40% drop in imported assault weapons traced to crime between 1989 and 1991, but the killing continues. Last year, a killer armed with two TEC9s killed eight people at a San Francisco law firm and wounded several others. During the past five years, more than 40 law enforcement officers have been killed or wounded in the line of duty by an assault weapon.

While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.

The date was May 3, 1994.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html

And oh yeah:

Sincerely,

Gerald R. Ford

Jimmy Carter

Ronald Reagan

[TDub]

What is the one thing all "mass" shooters have in common?
Yet, we choose to focus on, and label them, and find fault in who/what they are in regards to race, nationality, religion, gender identity, politics, upbringing, environment, etc., etc. etc.
Guess what? "Mass" shooters come in all shapes and sizes and all have differences of some kind/type.
Maybe instead of focusing on what differences identify them as people, we focus more on what they all have in common?
That's what's most fucked up to me.

mental illness?

[Shirley]

What is the one thing all "mass" shooters have in common?
Yet, we choose to focus on, and label them, and find fault in who/what they are in regards to race, nationality, religion, gender identity, politics, upbringing, environment, etc., etc. etc.
Guess what? "Mass" shooters come in all shapes and sizes and all have differences of some kind/type.
Maybe instead of focusing on what differences identify them as people, we focus more on what they all have in common?
That's what's most fucked up to me.

mental illness?

I tell myself, "Tdub's kidding, right"?

[KUTradition]

i personally don’t disagree, but would argue that’s only half of the equation

[jfish26]

i personally don’t disagree, but would argue that’s only half of the equation

I know you are not speaking to any particular percentage strictly.

And you're right of course - in almost all cases, I think we could say that shootings that are not legally justified (and probably many that ARE) have some component of mental illness, in one way or another.

But (and YOU are not doing this!) "blaming" mental illness for shootings is not generally done in good faith.

Certainly one tell is that those who blame mental illness for shootings also tend to NOT support things that would be designed to assess/improve/treat/destigmatize mental health issues. Or even expanded background checks, waiting periods and so on.

And of course another tell is that a raving lunatic with a frying pan is significantly less dangerous than one with a shotgun, and one with a shotgun is significantly less dangerous still than one with an assault rifle.

When you (general "you") fail to reach for the lowest-hanging fruit, it causes a lot of doubt about whether you're really that hungry at all.

[KUTradition]

i personally don’t disagree, but would argue that’s only half of the equation

I know you are not speaking to any particular percentage strictly.

And you're right of course - in almost all cases, I think we could say that shootings that are not legally justified (and probably many that ARE) have some component of mental illness, in one way or another.

But (and YOU are not doing this!) "blaming" mental illness for shootings is not generally done in good faith.

Certainly one tell is that those who blame mental illness for shootings also tend to NOT support things that would be designed to assess/improve/treat/destigmatize mental health issues. Or even expanded background checks, waiting periods and so on.

And of course another tell is that a raving lunatic with a frying pan is significantly less dangerous than one with a shotgun, and one with a shotgun is significantly less dangerous still than one with an assault rifle.

When you (general "you") fail to reach for the lowest-hanging fruit, it causes a lot of doubt about whether you're really that hungry at all.

we may disagree on this, but generally speaking i tend to be of the opinion that general citizens who handle “situations” with gun play are mentally ill on some level. just the fact that they think a gun will solve whatever ails them is evidence enough for me

but, you’re absolutely correct that a nut with anything other than a gun is much less dangerous

and, as has been said before ad nauseum, there are nuts all over the world…’murica (WOOOO!!) is the only place where they’ve got ready access to firearms

[jfish26]

i personally don’t disagree, but would argue that’s only half of the equation

I know you are not speaking to any particular percentage strictly.

And you're right of course - in almost all cases, I think we could say that shootings that are not legally justified (and probably many that ARE) have some component of mental illness, in one way or another.

But (and YOU are not doing this!) "blaming" mental illness for shootings is not generally done in good faith.

Certainly one tell is that those who blame mental illness for shootings also tend to NOT support things that would be designed to assess/improve/treat/destigmatize mental health issues. Or even expanded background checks, waiting periods and so on.

And of course another tell is that a raving lunatic with a frying pan is significantly less dangerous than one with a shotgun, and one with a shotgun is significantly less dangerous still than one with an assault rifle.

When you (general "you") fail to reach for the lowest-hanging fruit, it causes a lot of doubt about whether you're really that hungry at all.

we may disagree on this, but generally speaking i tend to be of the opinion that general citizens who handle “situations” with gun play are mentally ill on some level. just the fact that they think a gun will solve whatever ails them is evidence enough for me

but, you’re absolutely correct that a nut with anything other than a gun is much less dangerous

and, as has been said before ad nauseum, there are nuts all over the world…’murica (WOOOO!!) is the only place where they’ve got ready access to firearms

I don't think there's a ton of substantive daylight between us.

I'm not sure I feel comfortable saying (and I'm not saying that YOU'RE saying) that someone who has Foxbrain (and has been conditioned to think there's danger around every corner, and the world is safer when normies are armed in, like, suburban shopping centers) is, categorically, "mentally ill."

But it's ultimately a math problem, and I am not aware of empirical research supporting the notion that more guns = safer on a broad scale.

I also, as anyone here knows, strongly believe that not nearly enough attention is paid to the effect that loose gun acquisition laws (who can have them, when, and what exactly) have on the black market for guns. If guns weren't so easy to acquire legally, there would be fewer of them to be acquired illegally. It's sixth-grade econ (and sociology) from there.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

What is the one thing all "mass" shooters have in common?
Yet, we choose to focus on, and label them, and find fault in who/what they are in regards to race, nationality, religion, gender identity, politics, upbringing, environment, etc., etc. etc.
Guess what? "Mass" shooters come in all shapes and sizes and all have differences of some kind/type.
Maybe instead of focusing on what differences identify them as people, we focus more on what they all have in common?
That's what's most fucked up to me.

mental illness?

There is the magic question. I'll say yes but......
Define "mental illness". If we choose to nitpick, I would guesstimate 75% of people in this country have "mental illness" of some degree.

Brings me to what I have said more than once and will continue to say in regards to "mass shootings"......
A person would have to be "insane" to want to INTENTIONALLY shoot and kill multiple innocent people and yet they would have to be sane enough to be able to carry it out.

[jfish26]

What is the one thing all "mass" shooters have in common?
Yet, we choose to focus on, and label them, and find fault in who/what they are in regards to race, nationality, religion, gender identity, politics, upbringing, environment, etc., etc. etc.
Guess what? "Mass" shooters come in all shapes and sizes and all have differences of some kind/type.
Maybe instead of focusing on what differences identify them as people, we focus more on what they all have in common?
That's what's most fucked up to me.

mental illness?

There is the magic question. I'll say yes but......
Define "mental illness". If we choose to nitpick, I would guesstimate 75% of people in this country have "mental illness" of some degree.

Brings me to what I have said more than once and will continue to say in regards to "mass shootings"......
A person would have to be "insane" to want to INTENTIONALLY shoot and kill multiple innocent people and yet they would have to be sane enough to be able to carry it out.

But that’s exactly it - it clearly doesn’t require all that much sanity to kill a lot of people.

[jhawks99]

Meanwhile in Burnsville MN.

2 cops and a paramedic dead in a domestic violence call.

https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/hea ... -incident/

This rat bastard. Was convicted of felony battery in 2008. Part of his sentencing was a lifetime ban on owning firearms. In 2012 he petitioned a Minnesota court to restore his rights to own guns. That judge denied that request, stating continued restraining orders and domestic abuse. But this us America, and any crazy asshole has easy access to any gun they want. And you have two dead cops and a dead paramedic.

Yeah guns.
Petitioned a Minnesota court to restore his

[twocoach]

What is the one thing all "mass" shooters have in common?
Yet, we choose to focus on, and label them, and find fault in who/what they are in regards to race, nationality, religion, gender identity, politics, upbringing, environment, etc., etc. etc.
Guess what? "Mass" shooters come in all shapes and sizes and all have differences of some kind/type.
Maybe instead of focusing on what differences identify them as people, we focus more on what they all have in common?
That's what's most fucked up to me.

mental illness?

If "people kill people, not guns" then perhaps we can all agree that changes to existing guns laws need to be made to restrict the PEOPLE that have access to guns so that people who have reported mental illness cannot buy guns?

Apparently not.

[Sparko]

I thought the Supreme Court ruled that gun businesses were people? So confusing.

[twocoach]

sigh.

Without wasting any more time on this subject to go back and look, is there any chance the amount of umbrage expressed by you and DC for going on days now due to a comment by Sparko approaches or exceeds the amount of outrage you've expressed about the shooting of 22 and killing of 1 itself?
Because, it's beginning to seem like it.

It's a subject that for me constitutes an enormous part of my personal (and professional) frustration with our political climate. Everything -- even the tragedy of one murder and two dozen injuries at a fucking Super Bowl parade -- turns immediately into a question of friend and enemy groups.

This is DIFFERENT, BTW, from policy. Shootings necessarily bring thoughts and complaints about policy. That's understandable. But identity politics is something different altogether. It's about aligning oneself in a contest of values against those whose interests one sees as inimical and whose values one despises. The automatic presumption that the perpetrator of an evil act is your political nemesis -- based on next to nothing -- is ugly and destructive, whether it comes from Left or Right.

It's the Total State, and it ends poorly.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

"The automatic presumption that the perpetrator of an evil act is your political nemesis -- based on next to nothing -- is ugly and destructive, whether it comes from Left or Right."

Thank you, that was the point of my post regarding the red sweatsuit guy at the Chiefs parade. Add that unintentional bias to a climate of social media and a bunch of fake "news" sites that deliberately pour gasoline on any tiny spark of flame they can find and it is a recipe for constant chaos and hatred.

It's so frustrating that people can't just wait to gather information before they jump to conclusions about what they read. Some even jump to conclusions about what they DON'T read. I read a thread with hundreds of people claiming that the fact that the names of the alleged shooters at the Chiefs parade had not been released yet is because the media is trying to downplay the fact that they were African American vs. the fact that it is standard LEGAL practice of not releasing the names of juveniles (regardless of their ethnicity/race). Then we get another group that is pissed that it isn't being reported that they are "gangbangers" despite the fact that we have zero clue whether they are or not. These clowns are mad that the media doesn't just print facts and then get mad when the media doesn't speculate unproven facts. It's psychotic.

[Sparko]

In KC the shooters were supposedly subdued and taken into custody. The release of photos followed and were intentionally misleading. Everyone saw what they wanted to see. I should not have popped off. I really wanted to know if the photos were truly the shooter as they were portrayed. In the KC shooting, the police delayed releasing information and created a vacuum. More than 20 people were shot and they wanted to downplay the terror aspect. Which terrorized more people. "Dispute" ended in a hail of gunfire is still too vague.

[twocoach]

I thought the Supreme Court ruled that gun businesses were people? So confusing.

I don't understand why legal, responsible gun owners wouldn't want some sort of tweak to gun laws to separate them from the mentally ill or irresponsible gun owners? If you have no heart and the constant murders of innocent people doesn't move the needle, then be selfish. Why isn't "you MFers are making us look bad and might force me to go through a bunch of additional costs/steps even though I handle my shit just fine" a motivation? Something has to be done, they might as well get on board having it done in a manner that impacts them the least before some massive event happens and people force a massive overreaction change to happen.