Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Donward

Terror Attacks and Active Shooter Events Thread

Recommended Posts

One thing that gets glossed over, @Sgt.Squarehead, in speaking of people and fantasies, are when violent fantasies meet immediate resistance. There are cases throughout the US where a would-be Mass Shooter is stopped by a civilian, officer, etc. I know for a fact this has happened in the past year in Texas, Oregon, and I believe Washington. 

 

When someone snaps and decides to shoot up a mall (Because it's always a place where no guns are allowed...), they are living out a fantasy. It is brief, but in that moment they are in complete control. They are in power. 

 

Until a force is applied. A person with a concealed handgun, an off-duty police officer, etc. Then the fantasy crumbles around them. Why is it that so many turn the gun on themselves or immediately give up in these situations?  Again, these instances usually only see time on local news stations. 

 

We can talk anytime about the issues. I don't mind sensitive subjects, and different perspectives are always welcome. We can learn from each other, for better or for worse. Especially in this time. Everyone has questions, and everyone has different life experiences. My Fiance was held at gunpoint while managing a pizza joint on the East Coast. She looked a meth-head in the eye and said "What? Gonna kill me for $40?" 

 

Even with that experience, she'll be damned if she's ever without the ability to protect herself. 

 

I'd love to visit the UK again one day. Maybe see sights other than London.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

"What? Gonna kill me for $40?" 

 

Gutsy.

 

Sounds like you'd like my part of the world (Worcestershire/Herefordshire), the firearm to civilian ratio is probably rather higher out here (criminals excepted) and there's a bit more space to shoot them (guns not criminals).  :) 

 

Our local pubs are pretty bloody marvellous too, this one is so unique it has its own Wiki page (I can walk there with the dogs in twenty minutes or so, but I'm tea-total these days):  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mug_House

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure where to fit this. Hope it's sufficiently relevant. I came across something that sprung up while surfing one of the Gun subreddits: Michael Moore has a new plan to Save America(TM). You've heard of smart cars, now to announce the age of Smart(TM) Guns!

 

To save yourselves from the brain vomit his "28th Amendment" to replace the "outdated" 2nd amendment made "before bullets and revolvers were even invented" features:

  1. All auto and semi auto guns are banned
  2. The gun can't hold more than 6 shots
  3. The gun needs to be able to identify the person pulling the trigger and only operate for authorized users
  4. Citizens guns must be stored at a licensed gun club or a government regulated facility
  5. To own a gun you must have a license backed by a thorough background check, training and safety courses
  6. Increase funding to mental healthcare

There's a spiel about the CDC getting blocked from studying gun deaths, I think Moore was trying to reference lifting restrictions on the CDC so they can do that. Oh and requiring all gun purchases must have the written consent of the buyer's spouse(or significant other if not married)

 

Mulling on it more, I like how Moore criticizes the 2A for applying to old and outdated forms of weaponry and then in his "better" version demand a technological standard of identifying the user that is not implemented on most firearms, invalidating nearly every weapon since the 2A and even the ones he claims it actually applies to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The claim that videogame violence desensitize you is complete bullshit. Actually, statistics actually show a reduction in aggression and violent behavior.  Videogames are a medium that people can act out their fantasies in, meaning they are not incentivzed to do it in real life.  Want to go on a killing spree? Do it in a videogame for the same rush, with no downsides.

 

Videogames tend actually to show humanities dark sides.  Take a game DayZ, a a horror shooter about surviving a zombie apocalypse.  People kidnap people, break their legs, make them bleed, force feeds them rotten food, poisons them and dumps them in the wilderness. They force people to fight for their life, or they are shot. And the average player also tends to go on a killing spree, killing newly spawned people that have no way of defending themselves.  Basically a heavily armed soldier with hundreds of rounds mowing down people with just their fists or a shovel. 

These same people are perfectly working people that live normal lives and don't hurt a fly. 

 

 

About why politicians ban guns, but don't care about automobiles? Simple, money.  Automobiles makes a lot of  money directly for the country, guns make a small sum. This is how road speed is regulated, how much profits you want to earn, compared to how lethal you want the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Xoon said:

The claim that videogame violence desensitize you is complete bullshit. Actually, statistics actually show a reduction in aggression and violent behavior.  Videogames are a medium that people can act out their fantasies in, meaning they are not incentivzed to do it in real life.  Want to go on a killing spree? Do it in a videogame for the same rush, with no downsides.

 

Videogames tend actually to show humanities dark sides.  Take a game DayZ, a a horror shooter about surviving a zombie apocalypse.  People kidnap people, break their legs, make them bleed, force feeds them rotten food, poisons them and dumps them in the wilderness. They force people to fight for their life, or they are shot. And the average player also tends to go on a killing spree, killing newly spawned people that have no way of defending themselves.  Basically a heavily armed soldier with hundreds of rounds mowing down people with just their fists or a shovel. 

These same people are perfectly working people that live normal lives and don't hurt a fly. 

 

 

About why politicians ban guns, but don't care about automobiles? Simple, money.  Automobiles makes a lot of  money directly for the country, guns make a small sum. This is how road speed is regulated, how much profits you want to earn, compared to how lethal you want the road.

 

Isn't the discussion about cars eliding the fact that they're massively regulated? I don't know how things work in the US; but I assume that driver's licences are a thing, speed limits are a thing, emissions limits are a thing, mandatory safety devices are a thing, and so on. Translate all that to guns and you guys would flip out.

 

My impression of computer games and violence is that it's a bit like porn - with both positive and negative effects which vary depending on what group you fall into. My guess is that a lot of people are made slightly less violent by getting to burn off steam, but that some people discover and refine a taste for violence in themselves by exposure. The effect probably also differs depending on your age and your specific life issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

It was never about how people feel. 

 

Over 3000 people die in automobile accidents in this country every day. That's real. There is no lobby for stricter automobile control. No push for better licensing, limiting types of vehicles, etc. 3000 people a day die in objects that are sold based on how "safe" they are. 

 

Meanwhile, guns kill a handful a day. Two thirds are suicides, the rest are usually criminals killing criminals. And they keep the law-abiding safe, as concealed carry deters numerous attacks without ever firing a shot. The presence or presentation of force against a threat is oftentimes enough to deter said threat. 

 

The thing that's meant to kill people keeps a majority of the country safe.

 

Meanwhile, the thing that's meant to keep you safe is the thing most likely to kill you. 

 

Violence and crime are vague, multi-faceted concepts that take years of study to grasp on a large scale. Consider that the United States is the largest and most diverse country on earth in terms of culture and demographics, yet one of the safest relative to our heterogeneous population.  

 

And besides, making laws to dissuade lawbreakers has never worked. 

 

Laws are not meant to protect. They are meant to give a society rules of punishment for when they are inevitably broken. 

Since I've already mentioned that automobiles are heavily regulated, what about exposure risk?

 

The data I could find showed that around 15% of the US population owns guns and 80% owns cars. Even assuming that gun owners shoot a lot and carry frequently, I can't imagine that the exposure time is higher for guns than cars. So cars should kill at least five times more people by simple exposure than guns, even if using both is equally safe.

 

The other data I could find showed that deaths attributable to automobiles are around the same as deaths attributable to firearms in the US. So, even if we make the dubious assumption about equal time-based levels of exposure, car ownership is at least  five times safter than gun ownership.

 

You could use this to make the argument that the automotive safety lobby already romped on home on this one, and that cars are as safe as they can be made given the limits of engineering and the decreasing benefits associated with further risk-reduction measures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Toxn said:

 

Isn't the discussion about cars eliding the fact that they're massively regulated? I don't know how things work in the US; but I assume that driver's licences are a thing, speed limits are a thing, emissions limits are a thing, mandatory safety devices are a thing, and so on. Translate all that to guns and you guys would flip out.

 

My impression of computer games and violence is that it's a bit like porn - with both positive and negative effects which vary depending on what group you fall into. My guess is that a lot of people are made slightly less violent by getting to burn off steam, but that some people discover and refine a taste for violence in themselves by exposure. The effect probably also differs depending on your age and your specific life issues.

The point is, cars provide economic growth. They allow people to travel, earn and spend money. Transport goods and such. 

A gun does not, since they not the same. 

 

Of course, this is not how it is represented, because saying to the public "Yes, we are going to kill more people a year because we want more economic growth in this area" does not really catch on well. 

 

I am not sure what the problem is with automatic weapons and semi-automatics. The problem is not the weapon, it is the shooter. Why not just improve the licence process? 

 

In Norway, you have to store the weapon in a weapons locker, separate from the ammunition, remove the bolt when storing it. You have to be a in a hunting club to have a hunting rifle, a shooting club to have a shooting rifle. And you have random checkups, mandatory tests. Mental issue tests and criminal background check.  If you stop hunting or shooting, you lose your licence. 

Gun murders here are very rare. 

 

Basically, you need a reason to own a firearm here. This makes it hard however to own ridicules weapons like a AR15 for hunting. But you can legally own a MG42 and shoot with it, but those needs a collectors licence. My friend got one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Xoon said:

The point is, cars provide economic growth. They allow people to travel, earn and spend money. Transport goods and such. 

A gun does not, since they not the same. 

 

Of course, this is not how it is represented, because saying to the public "Yes, we are going to kill more people a year because we want more economic growth in this area" does not really catch on well. 

 

I am not sure what the problem is with automatic weapons and semi-automatics. The problem is not the weapon, it is the shooter. Why not just improve the licence process? 

 

In Norway, you have to store the weapon in a weapons locker, separate from the ammunition, remove the bolt when storing it. You have to be a in a hunting club to have a hunting rifle, a shooting club to have a shooting rifle. And you have random checkups, mandatory tests. Mental issue tests and criminal background check.  If you stop hunting or shooting, you lose your licence. 

Gun murders here are very rare. 

 

Basically, you need a reason to own a firearm here. This makes it hard however to own ridicules weapons like a AR15 for hunting. But you can legally own a MG42 and shoot with it, but those needs a collectors licence. My friend got one. 

Ah, I understand where you're coming from now. I think I conflated your and Oedipus' points.

 

US folk can chime in on licenses in their neck of the woods. Where I live, however, it's much the same process as for you - although club membership is only strictly required for semi-auto rifles rather (bolt-actions, pistols or shotguns fall under a self-defence or occasional hunting/sport shooting licence). You also need to motivate ownership here.

 

People carp about some of it, of course (especially the pistol folk), but I haven't seen any folk fail to get a licence if they're keen and willing to put in the time, effort etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

There are 253 million cars in the US. There are 11 million guns.

 

Cars kill 3200 a day. Guns kill 23. 

 

Find ratio.

 

12.6 deaths per day per million cars.

 

2.1 deaths per day per million guns. 

 

This was done on my phone while waiting for the shower to open up before work. Fix my numbers, @Sturgeon or @Collimatrix.

300 million guns according to wiki. 265 million guns and 55 million gun owners, according to Fortune.

 

More wiki stuff:

Gun-related deaths per year in the US: ~33 000

Car-related deaths per year in the US: ~35 000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Do you actually think the availability of such devices is a good idea? 

 

I liked your earlier suggestion that those who really want automatic weapons should probably jump through a few hoops, just so the rest of us can feel a little safer, it's not a lot to ask for something which should IMHO be deemed a privilege as much as it is a right.....You are asking your fellows to place a great deal of trust in your good character after all.

 

I'm British, a non-firearm owner but several of my friends have full firearms licences and multiple weapons, so again I have no dog in the fight and I certainly do not mean to offend.....Just putting it out there.

 

Which devices? Bump fire stocks, or high cap mags?

 

Not that I think it matters. Neither one is a key ingredient to an attack like this. Remember, 9/11 was carried out by some dudes with boxcutters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Toxn said:

Isn't the discussion about cars eliding the fact that they're massively regulated? I don't know how things work in the US; but I assume that driver's licences are a thing, speed limits are a thing, emissions limits are a thing, mandatory safety devices are a thing, and so on. Translate all that to guns and you guys would flip out.

 

Cars are not massively regulated (in fact, they're hardly regulated at all). Driving cars on public roads is regulated. We have registration, licensing, etc., but none of that is necessary to own an automobile (except the sales tax). Having bought both cars and guns in this country, buying cars is less invasive. I don't need to do a background check to buy a car.

 

Likewise, with guns we have concealed carry licenses, classes, etc. All very comparable to cars. And oh by the way, the vast majority of pro-gun people support nationalizing those regulations with concealed carry reciprocity laws and/or a national concealed carry bill.

Oh, also I should mention there is no Constitutional right to keep and drive cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Cars are not massively regulated (in fact, they're hardly regulated at all). Driving cars on public roads is regulated. We have registration, licensing, etc., but none of that is necessary to own an automobile (except the sales tax). Having bought both cars and guns in this country, buying cars is less invasive. I don't need to do a background check to buy a car.

 

Likewise, with guns we have concealed carry licenses, classes, etc. All very comparable to cars. And oh by the way, the vast majority of pro-gun people support nationalizing those regulations with concealed carry reciprocity laws and/or a national concealed carry bill.

Oh, also I should mention there is no Constitutional right to keep and drive cars.

All fair enough points, although I'd quibble that there's scant difference in practice between regulation of public use and regulation of all use where cars are concerned.

 

The US has mandatory safety features for cars, correct?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Toxn said:

All fair enough points, although I'd quibble that there's scant difference in practice between regulation of public use and regulation of all use where cars are concerned.

 

The US has mandatory safety features for cars, correct?

 

For new production cars, but the same is true for guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Toxn said:

there's scant difference in practice between regulation of public use and regulation of all use where cars are concerned.

 

Yes, because most guns sit in the safe until they are taken to the range. And by the way, if you think those regs stop people from driving illegal vehicles on public roads, then you'll be surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Toxn said:

Ah, I understand where you're coming from now. I think I conflated your and Oedipus' points.

 

US folk can chime in on licenses in their neck of the woods. Where I live, however, it's much the same process as for you - although club membership is only strictly required for semi-auto rifles rather (bolt-actions, pistols or shotguns fall under a self-defence or occasional hunting/sport shooting licence). You also need to motivate ownership here.

 

People carp about some of it, of course (especially the pistol folk), but I haven't seen any folk fail to get a licence if they're keen and willing to put in the time, effort etc.

 

 

Comparing guns to cars is apples to oranges, but I'll play along. If you want to carry a gun around other people, most of the time you will need a license to do so. If you want to drive cars on your own property, you don't need a license. You don't need a license to own and operate a car, you need a license to drive on public roads. There are no restrictions on how big or fast a car can be, no limits on its performance, just restrictions on where you can take a heavy vehicle, or how fast you can drive. I can own a McLaren F1, and on a private track I can open it and redline it, but I have to play nice in public with it. In terms of firearms, that's like owning a M134, but limiting the RoF to 30 rounds per minute when shooting on public lands. The difference is that I can't own a M134

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sturgeon said:

 

Yes, because most guns sit in the safe until they are taken to the range. And by the way, if you think those regs stop people from driving illegal vehicles on public roads, then you'll be surprised.

 

3 minutes ago, Toxn said:

All fair enough points, although I'd quibble that there's scant difference in practice between regulation of public use and regulation of all use where cars are concerned.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

For new production cars, but the same is true for guns.

I thought safety features on guns were optional, but I'm glad to be corrected on this point.

 

The number of mandatory features new cars are required to have is remarkable, and increases year-on-year. So you'll have to forgive me for assuming that firearms might lag a bit in this department.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ulric said:

 

 

Comparing guns to cars is apples to oranges, but I'll play along. If you want to carry a gun around other people, most of the time you will need a license to do so. If you want to drive cars on your own property, you don't need a license. You don't need a license to own and operate a car, you need a license to drive on public roads. There are no restrictions on how big or fast a car can be, no limits on its performance, just restrictions on where you can take a heavy vehicle, or how fast you can drive. I can own a McLaren F1, and on a private track I can open it and redline it, but I have to play nice in public with it. In terms of firearms, that's like owning a M134, but limiting the RoF to 30 rounds per minute when shooting on public lands. The difference is that I can't own a M134

I agree that the comparison gets a bit strained, but then I didn't make it.

 

I have no idea how stringent licencing is for wherever-you-come-from, so you'll have to fill in on the details. Does it involve a competency test?

 

I'm also assuming here that you guys use a similar system to ours - where there are different types of vehicle licences required to operate bikes, trucks and cars.

 

Finally; would you say that the automotive approach is better, safety-wise? Would having a similar approach to firearms do more to limit people getting shot (which is about as narrowly as you can define such a complex thing). Or would it be better to apply the reverse approach and ban vehicles capable of exceeding certain speed limits or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns in the USA likely exceed 500 million. 300 million is a conservative figure that was first estimated in the early 2000s IIRC, and since then at least 200 million guns have been injected into circulation based on NICS checks (most of which are for new guns). The company Ruger sold 2.5 million new guns in the year between May 2015 and May 2016, alone.

 

There were 255 million registered automobiles in the US as of 2012. 

 

In 2012, there were 21,175 suicides, 11,208 homicides, 505 accidental/negligent deaths, and 281 "undetermined" deaths in the US. Like Oedipus, I will set aside suicides for now as they are a very different issue and no gun regulation short of the absolute most extreme could prevent them, but we'll get back to them. So we will take a total figure of 11,994 and round it to 12,000 deaths per year that could reasonably be called a byproduct of having guns in the society.

In the USA there are approximately 34,000 deaths per annum due to motor vehicles, all from crashes. I think we can definitively say that these crashes are a byproduct of having automobiles in our society, although - like guns - they say nothing about whether this toll would be higher with another means of transportation or not.

 

Some math:

Gun deaths per day: 32.88

 

Auto deaths per day: 93.15

 

Gun deaths per year per million guns: 24

 

Auto deaths per year per million automobiles: 133

 

If we throw in suicides (and I don't think we should), this is what it looks like:

 

Gun deaths per day: 93.15

 

Auto deaths per day: 93.15

 

Gun deaths per year per million guns: 68

 

Auto deaths per year per million automobiles: 133

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Toxn said:

 

 

 

I thought safety features on guns were optional, but I'm glad to be corrected on this point.

 

The number of mandatory features new cars are required to have is remarkable, and increases year-on-year. So you'll have to forgive me for assuming that firearms might lag a bit in this department.

 

Safety features on guns fall into two categories: real safety, and lawyer safety. Real safeties are things that make sure the firearms only go bang when the shooter deliberately presses the trigger. They also make sure that the shooter isn't injured in the event of a catastrophic failure. They can also prevent users from inducing a catastrophic failure.

 

Lawyer safeties are things that don't enhance the mechanical safety, but instead exists as a thin legal defense when things go wrong. Magazine disconnects, loaded chamber indicators, biometric interlocks, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Toxn said:

I thought safety features on guns were optional, but I'm glad to be corrected on this point.

 

They are generally regulated by civilian organizations, not the government, but the end result is the same. All big brand guns and cars come with safety features, and cheap shitty guns and cars don't. For example, you can buy an ATV with fuckall for safety features, and it's not an "automobile", but that's just semantics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Toxn said:

I agree that the comparison gets a bit strained, but then I didn't make it.

 

I have no idea how stringent licencing is for wherever-you-come-from, so you'll have to fill in on the details. Does it involve a competency test?

 

I'm also assuming here that you guys use a similar system to ours - where there are different types of vehicle licences required to operate bikes, trucks and cars.

 

Finally; would you say that the automotive approach is better, safety-wise? Would having a similar approach to firearms do more to limit people getting shot (which is about as narrowly as you can define such a complex thing). Or would it be better to apply the reverse approach and ban vehicles capable of exceeding certain speed limits or something?

 

90% of firearms used in crime are stolen, how does licensing stop crime when crime is usually committed by those could not get a license if they tried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Guns in the USA likely exceed 500 million. 300 million is a conservative figure that was first estimated in the early 2000s IIRC, and since then at least 200 million guns have been injected into circulation based on NICS checks (most of which are for new guns). The company Ruger sold 2.5 million new guns in the year between 2015 and 2016, alone.

 

There were 255 million registered automobiles in the US as of 2012. 

 

In 2012, there were 21,175 suicides, 11,208 homicides, 505 accidental/negligent deaths, and 281 "undetermined" deaths in the US. Like Oedipus, I will set aside suicides for now as they are a very different issue and no gun regulation short of the absolute most extreme could prevent them, but we'll get back to them. So we will take a total figure of 11,994 and round it to 12,000 deaths per year that could reasonably be called a byproduct of having guns in the society.

In the USA there are approximately 34,000 deaths per annum due to motor vehicles, all from crashes. I think we can definitively say that these crashes are a byproduct of having automobiles in our society, although - like guns - they say nothing about whether this toll would be higher with another means of transportation or not.

 

Some math:

Gun deaths per day: 32.88

 

Auto deaths per day: 93.15

 

Gun deaths per year per million guns: 24

 

Auto deaths per year per million automobiles: 133

 

If we throw in suicides (and I don't think we should), this is what it looks like:

 

Gun deaths per day: 93.15

 

Auto deaths per day: 93.15

 

Gun deaths per year per million guns: 68

 

Auto deaths per year per million automobiles: 133

 

Isn't dividing by the total amount of guns a bit odd, given that most gun owners own more than one? I went with gun owners as a proxy for that reason.

 

This also doesn't do much to quantify exposure risk - which is admittedly much harder to look at in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×