[worry]

On the Denver Walmart shooting yesterday: http://www.denverpos...lmart-shooting/

Quote

When a gunman opened fire inside a Walmart in Thornton Wednesday night, shoppers screamed and ran for cover — and others pulled out their own handguns.

But those who drew weapons during the shootings ultimately delayed the investigation as authorities pored over surveillance videotape trying to identify the assailant who killed three people, police said Thursday.

[Cause]

Statistics tell me people are more likely to be shot with their own gun than to shoot a criminal with one. Its a fact so I'm willing to believe it.

However for a cop to suggest that when citizens are caught up in a random shooting in a Walmart that it would have been better for them not be armed because it delayed their investigation I'm forced to conclude that cop is a moron. You round up every suspect and only release them when cleared, you can even do it in such a way that the people in question are not in a cell. You can check everyone's gun to see if its been fired. I'm actually really struggling to see his side of this.

[Silencer]

Cause, on 03 November 2017 - 08:34 AM, said:

Statistics tell me people are more likely to be shot with their own gun than to shoot a criminal with one. Its a fact so I'm willing to believe it.

However for a cop to suggest that when citizens are caught up in a random shooting in a Walmart that it would have been better for them not be armed because it delayed their investigation I'm forced to conclude that cop is a moron. You round up every suspect and only release them when cleared, you can even do it in such a way that the people in question are not in a cell. You can check everyone's gun to see if its been fired. I'm actually really struggling to see his side of this.

Haven't read the article but I can think of a half dozen reasons why it would have been better if the citizens weren't armed that *don't* have to do with delaying the investigation.

Also, it's not that easy to confirm if a gun has been fired recently *to a standard that is acceptable in a court of law*, ballistics evidence can take ages to process, etc, etc. It's not a great argument on its own but coupled with all the other reasons having multiple active shooters in a gun fight is much worse than having just one it definitely isn't a bad argument.

[Cause]

Yes but a simple check of who has spent ammo will immediately narrow down those who fired their guns vs those who didn't. Then you do further tests to narrow it down further. At this point they were not building a case for prosecution, though that is surely the end goal. At this point they were just eliminating suspects who were in the store armed but who were not the actual shooter so they could focus their investigation.

[Silencer]

Cause, on 03 November 2017 - 12:55 PM, said:

Yes but a simple check of who has spent ammo will immediately narrow down those who fired their guns vs those who didn't. Then you do further tests to narrow it down further. At this point they were not building a case for prosecution, though that is surely the end goal. At this point they were just eliminating suspects who were in the store armed but who were not the actual shooter so they could focus their investigation.

Sure, but that is neither quick nor particularly reliable. Unless everyone is recovering their shell casings and storing them after firing, it essentially means counting bullets in magazines - which requires you to know/figure out how many bullets the gun in question holds. And there is then a question of whether a person has chambered a round from the magazine, or loaded one into the chamber directly (thus giving false positives in the former case). And ALL of this is assuming that no one reloaded - because if you dismiss someone on the basis that their magazine is full and they turn out to be the shooter? That is a colossal fuck up.
And it's (again) necessary to go to ballistics to match any spent casings to guns. So about the best case scenario is you dismiss anyone with the wrong calibre gun if there is only one or two types of spent casings. But that's unlikely to narrow it down much.

Again, I'm not saying it's a great argument. But it's also not baseless when you need to be very sure of who you're letting go. And, it's also an additional argument - it doesn't need to stand or fall by itself. Multiple shooters is downright more dangerous than a lone gunman. Cops have no way of knowing who is trying to save the day and who is the criminal. Other citizens who don't see the initial shooter may shoot someone who is returning fire or have a drawn weapon by accident. Citizens may miss and hit people in the background or through cross fire. Hell, they might hit their target and *still* hit people in the background. Everyone who is armed *might* be an accomplice whether they started shooting or not. And it means cops have to detain those people fully and more carefully search them and possibly cuff them before moving on to the next person. Add to that the colossal increase in ballistics evidence it can generate and you can see how a cop might have a real problem with other people being armed in that situation and its aftermath.
Like I said, I'm not really commenting on this exact case but in general, my opinion is more general.

[Nevyn]

Cause, on 03 November 2017 - 08:34 AM, said:

Statistics tell me people are more likely to be shot with their own gun than to shoot a criminal with one. Its a fact so I'm willing to believe it.

However for a cop to suggest that when citizens are caught up in a random shooting in a Walmart that it would have been better for them not be armed because it delayed their investigation I'm forced to conclude that cop is a moron. You round up every suspect and only release them when cleared, you can even do it in such a way that the people in question are not in a cell. You can check everyone's gun to see if its been fired. I'm actually really struggling to see his side of this.

Saying it slowed the investigation is not saying it would be better if they were not armed. Nor it is saying you didn't detain/test everyone.

It is simply telling people "it took us 5 extra hours to identify the shooter because we had to rule other people out in the video".

[Andorion]

So after the church shooting in Texas, I want to ask, what motivates shooters? Why isn't there a bigger effort to understand these factors?

When young men were being indoctrinated by ISIS to commit random acts of violence there was a discussion about the social psychology that made this possible. Many people brought up things like social alienation and identity crisis.

So when gun violence in the US is a huge crisis, why is there not an effort to figure out what motivates these people? Their social media history, interactions with friends and family, employment and even purchase history could provide clues.

To me it seems the gun control solution is a lost cause. But this still seems to be a viable approach.

[amphibian]

Many of the same things that drive the people who commit acts of violence for ISIS, Boko Haram, and so many other groups are present here. Frustration with money/debt, insecurity, lack of jobs, romantic lives, repressed alternate sexualities, displaced anger, envy of others, and above all, access to weapons.

[Silencer]

And every time the discussion turns away from gun control, it goes to mental health. Except there is about as much political will to provide proper access to mental health services as there is to implement gun control, so it's basically just a deflection to yet another thing that won't happen.

[amphibian]

I forgot to say this: A history of abuse is probably the biggest common factor in whether or not someone murders.

That's far, far more important to this than mental health issues - there are millions who successfully manage their mental illnesses without murdering people or hurting themselves. Although, we should treat mental health issues more.

[worry]

All of the above granted, the NRA has actively lobbied (in some state successfully) to defeat or eliminate laws barring convicted abusers from getting guns. And we know what Trumpcare would have done for mental health aid (e.g. eliminate it entirely from Medicaid), and the tax bill the House proposed is likely to use cuts to safety net programs like Medicare/Medicaid/etc. to offset the $1.5 trillion they're handing over to the wealthy.

In that light, technically we aren't doing nothing about these issues. We're exacerbating them.

[Silencer]

amphibian, on 06 November 2017 - 03:15 AM, said:

I forgot to say this: A history of abuse is probably the biggest common factor in whether or not someone murders.

That's far, far more important to this than mental health issues - there are millions who successfully manage their mental illnesses without murdering people or hurting themselves. Although, we should treat mental health issues more.

Oh absolutely, was making a quick post at lunch so to be clear: the fact that to automatically derails to mental health is not a good thing nor is it very helpful.
What I was trying to say was that they *use* mental health as a scapegoat - but then don't even actually do anything to help with mental health anyway. Which means it actively hurts people with mental illness because it stigmatises them. At the very least if talking about (read: blaming) mental health for mass shootings at least resulted in better health care it wouldn't be a completely bad thing. As it is it takes all the downside and doesn't offer any upside.

[Cause]

Andorion, on 06 November 2017 - 02:35 AM, said:

So after the church shooting in Texas, I want to ask, what motivates shooters? Why isn't there a bigger effort to understand these factors?

When young men were being indoctrinated by ISIS to commit random acts of violence there was a discussion about the social psychology that made this possible. Many people brought up things like social alienation and identity crisis.

So when gun violence in the US is a huge crisis, why is there not an effort to figure out what motivates these people? Their social media history, interactions with friends and family, employment and even purchase history could provide clues.

To me it seems the gun control solution is a lost cause. But this still seems to be a viable approach.

The people are 3 standard deviations away from normal, they are 0.01% of the population and though they are often nutters they often seem to be able to hide in plain sight. The Vegas shooter had a girlfriend, family etc and none of them spoke of him as a crazy lunatic but he was. The columbine shooters went to school and didn't raise enough red flags until they shot the school up. I'm not saying mental health is a lost cause but I don't think its an either or situation, People will fall through the cracks of either solution and so its better to have both safety nets than neither or just one.

I think there is a very large percentage of people on this planet with abhorrent ideologies. I think the one thing that saves us is that for the vast majority absent the mob mentality (riots, wars etc) they lack the ability to overcome the barriers that stop most of us from killing random strangers. The mass shooters for some reason do overcome this barrier and I think the wanring signs whatever they are will be almost impossible to spot.

[Macros]

Trump speaking from Japan this morning said this tragedy is absolutely not a gun issue.

Fuck you Donald.

[champ]

How the hell can someone who has had a "lot of problems over a very long period of time" be allowed to buy guns!?

Trump:

Quote

“I think that mental health is a problem here. Based on preliminary reports, this was a very deranged individual with a lot of problems over a very long period of time. “We have a lot of mental health problems in our country, as do other countries, but this isn’t a guns situation … we could go into it but it’s a little bit soon to go into it.

I noticed the usual line of "too soon to go into it," too, it's over a month since Las Vegas, is that too soon? Is that now forgotten? Is this still spoke about in the US at all or is it swept under the carpet?

- A bewildered spectator from across the pond...

Though I shouldn't be surprised...

[HoosierDaddy]

If Sandy Hook didn't do it, nothing will.

Congress is in the pocket of the NRA.

[Cause]

Not a bad strategy by the gun lobby. One month to grieve after any mass shooting before we can talk about it. Since there are more than 12 a year we can never talk about it.

[Gust Hubb]

It will be interesting to watch how this one unfolds. In this shooting, someone was able to exchange fire with their own gun and then chase down the gunman with a car until the gunman lost control and crashed. This seems like the prime example of someone having guns to counter guns; and yet, 27 still died and the gunman was still able to flee. You would anticipate Texas to be the least likely place a gunman could attack without armed resistance.

Of course, the argument against gun control will be how many more would have died if the gunman was unopposed....

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 06 November 2017 - 03:15 AM, said:

I forgot to say this: A history of abuse is probably the biggest common factor in whether or not someone murders.

That's far, far more important to this than mental health issues - there are millions who successfully manage their mental illnesses without murdering people or hurting themselves. Although, we should treat mental health issues more.

^^This 100%

In fact, you dig into the pasts of 99.9% of serial killers, mass shooters, and the like...and you will find an abusive upbringing of some kind.

[Macros]

Gust Hubb, on 06 November 2017 - 01:14 PM, said:

It will be interesting to watch how this one unfolds. In this shooting, someone was able to exchange fire with their own gun and then chase down the gunman with a car until the gunman lost control and crashed. This seems like the prime example of someone having guns to counter guns; and yet, 27 still died and the gunman was still able to flee. You would anticipate Texas to be the least likely place a gunman could attack without armed resistance.

Of course, the argument against gun control will be how many more would have died if the gunman was unopposed....

Trump highlighted this I don't remember his words verbatim.
But a rough copy of it was
'this was tragic, but thanks to the counter shooter, it's not as bad as it could have been'

You know how it could have been a lot better DJT? If someone with serious mental problems wasn't able to buy a fucking gun