2017 Mass Killings in the United States

Status
Not open for further replies.
zxcvbob said:
Yes, I was referring to the Puckle gun. I assume some of the Founders were aware of it, and it's a lot easier to imagine the Puckle gun evolving into a useful automatic weapon that it would be to imagine the existence of Radio, TV, computers, and satellite communications (etc). You had a clumsy prototype already.
Click to expand...
Perhaps they had enough faith in their countryman to assume that they would not want to own a giant pointless novelty gun. However misplaced that faith turned out to be.
 
JollyRoger said:
Being charged is not the issue. Does Las Vegas not count because the shooter will not be charged?
Click to expand...

My, what a good question! That makes me think! Let me see if I can put this in words.

The traditional, ritual suicide is an admission of criminal intent? No that does not work, since we could argue a drunk driver is also a sort of suicide.

So maybe vehicular homicides do not count at all? What about the half-dozen people who have brought down airliners, killing themselves. If we do not count murder-by-car, why do we count murder-by-plane.

What I want is a bright shining line, an easy rule to apply fairly over hundreds of cases. I would value your thoughts. Maybe, "Four or more killed by a single criminal or by a person who clearly and purposely kills himself in a grand finale." Would that work? I value your thoughts.
 
I think you exclude vehicle accidents but count someone who, say for example, drives into a crowd with the intent to kill or injure. You would count the intentional shooter, but perhaps exclude someone who kills in a shootout to try to get away with or escape from another crime. Some would be judgment calls. If I was making a list, drunk driving accidents would be out, but the Las Vegas shooter would be in.
 
Paul in Saudi said:
So maybe vehicular homicides do not count at all? What about the half-dozen people who have brought down airliners, killing themselves. If we do not count murder-by-car, why do we count murder-by-plane.
Click to expand...

The intent, "Did he try to kill these people?". If the driver or pilot did it on purpose (suicide) then it counts. If it was an accident (drunk, texting, seizure, etc.) it does not count. A drunk driver is certainly careless and dangerous, but he isn't trying to kill people. I guess then it gets questionable if he was or wasn't trying to kill them on purpose and just got drunk on the way. But unless there is evidence he did it on purpose (he drove through a crowd at his former employer, or through the wedding party of his ex-wife), I'd say it's best to assume it was an accident.
 
All in all, I am an inclusionist. As long as the link works, a reader could use my list to find the sorts of thing he is looking for. I am counting mass killings by any means. Others count mass shootings. The FBI counts incidents of three or more dead, while I count four but include the suicide. The area is a mess.

standards.png
 
zxcvbob said:
Yes, I was referring to the Puckle gun. I assume some of the Founders were aware of it, and it's a lot easier to imagine the Puckle gun evolving into a useful automatic weapon that it would be to imagine the existence of Radio, TV, computers, and satellite communications (etc). You had a clumsy prototype already. They also seemed to have no problem with private ownership of warships ("Letters of Marque and Reprisal", Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution)
Click to expand...

So? The Founders also seemed to have no problem with private ownership of people. Why should we care what they thought? Like, at all?
 
Lexicus said:
So? The Founders also seemed to have no problem with private ownership of people. Why should we care what they thought? Like, at all?
Click to expand...
I agree, "Originalism" is an idiotic principle on which to base any kind of jurisprudence. On the contrary, it's my opinion that a Supreme Court justice who doesn't interpret the US Constitution in the contemporary context is shirking his or her responsibility, that Interpreting the Constitution in the contemporary context is the primary reason we have a SCOTUS in the first place. I think what the Founders might have thought about an AK-47 is kind of an interesting academic exercise, but it's ultimately irrelevant to what we should do about guns today.
 
EgonSpengler said:
I agree, "Originalism" is an idiotic principle on which to base any kind of jurisprudence. On the contrary, it's my opinion that a Supreme Court justice who doesn't interpret the US Constitution in the contemporary context is shirking his or her responsibility, that Interpreting the Constitution in the contemporary context is the primary reason we have a SCOTUS in the first place. I think what the Founders might have thought about an AK-47 is kind of an interesting academic exercise, but it's ultimately irrelevant to what we should do about guns today.
Click to expand...

Most of the founders were smart guys. I think they'd recognize that guns today are a serious public health problem, and that the major reason nothing is done about them is the power and influence of the gun industry lobby. And I think they'd be pretty pissed about it.
 
So what I wonder is, did Zxcvbob realise that he's let the cat out of the bag in lumping universal suffrage in with all those other "ills of the modern world"?

(Also, half-genuine question, where exactly do these people think postmodernism originated, if not the West? Iran?)
 
Last edited:
Traitorfish said:
So what I wonder is, did Zxcvbob realise that he's let the cat out of the bag in lumping universal suffrage in with all those other "ills of the modern world"?

(Also, half-genuine question, where exactly do these people think postmodernism originated, if not the West? Iran?)
Click to expand...

I think they might have been okay with that one, I dunno. It's hard to tell from the founding documents. I just stole the image from somewhere. ;)
 
You'll kindly direct me to the section of the Novanglus letters where Adams addresses transgenderism, then, or the passage of the Federalist Papers in which were Hamilton weighs in on abortion.
 
Last edited:
EgonSpengler said:
I don't think the founders of the US even had spin-stabilized bullets or smokeless powder in mind when they were considering things like a militia. I think those were both 19th-century inventions.
Click to expand...
The Constitution may needs additional Amendments to address the gray areas left out from the 2nd Amendment.
 
It doesn't make sense to count people killed by car when the driver was intending to kill himself/herself but did not intend to kill others too.

Although suicide by car-driving is really a strange way to kill oneself, unless you drive off the edge of some hill. Even hitting a tree or wall may see you survive, crippled. And driving intentionally into other cars in traffic is a really horrible method if you (only) aim to kill yourself.
 
tuckerkao said:
The Constitution may needs additional Amendments to address the gray areas left out from the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...
Nah. We should just repeal the 2nd.
 
zxcvbob said:
I think they might have been okay with that one, I dunno. It's hard to tell from the founding documents. I just stole the image from somewhere. ;)
Click to expand...

It would probably interest you to know that you've just reposted literal Nazi propaganda.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
Mass Killings in the US (2025)
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
Paul in Saudi
P
P
Mass Killings in the US (2024)
3 4 5
Replies
88
Views
5K
Paul in Saudi
P
P
Mass Killings in the US (2023)
3 4 5
Replies
94
Views
6K
Paul in Saudi
P
P
Mass Killings in the United States (2022)
5 6 7
Replies
125
Views
9K
Aiken_Drumn
Aiken_Drumn
P
Mass Killings in the United States (2021)
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
9K
Aiken_Drumn
Aiken_Drumn
Back
Top Bottom