2017 Mass Killings in the United States

[EgonSpengler]

It was only less than a year ago that Nevadans voted to close the "gun show loophole" in their firearms laws. I don't know if any legislative bill has been proposed or any law gone into effect yet. It's possible the 10 guns this guy had were all legally purchased and owned.

 

[EgonSpengler]

NPR has updated the numbers to 58 dead and 515 injured. The latter number includes people hurt in the stampede, and isn't just gunshot wounds.

 

[danjuno]

Fully auto weapons are legal to own under federal law so long as you are able to jump through bureaucratic hoops, pass background checks, and pay a tax stamp or something like that. What I heard on the news said the guy didn't have any red flag in his background, so it's possible he'd flown under the radar. Mesquite police said the guy had a citation for something minor a few years back (didn't say what, but evidently nothing that would have tipped anybody off) and it was dealt with through the local courts.

 

[Hrothbern]

First my condolences to all personally involved
and my general opinion that less weapons would be better, living in a country that has 35 times less weapons per capita than the US. Not much more than needed for pro hunters, nobility / nouveau riche hunters and some hobbyists.

That being said, just some provocative stuff on the topic.
I think that

• The media cover mass shootings much more than the steady huge stream of homicides (12k per year), up to Presidents feeling the need to be involved.
• the discussion about automatic or semi-automatic is only distracting from the root causes. (assault weapons only causing 2% of total gun homicides) and therefore useless if you aim at the root causes to reduce gun homicides.
• every incident leading to these kind of discussions are only a boost for the companies selling weapons (not only with Obama, but also right now with increased share prices of Sturm Ruger, American Outdoor Brands ) and in effect because of fast sales increasing the total weapons.
• The amount of weapons per capita in the US is roughly only 4 times as high as for example Canada, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Austria, France.

The biggest difference is the amount of homicides per weapon in possession.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

 

[JollyRoger]

Obviously, the U.S. needs to increase its number of firearms to bring its homicide per weapon ratio down.

 

[sherbz]

Obviously, the U.S. needs to increase its number of firearms to bring its homicide per weapon ratio down.

Im guessing this is sarcasm?

I do think that some people have a warped sense of what keeps them safe though. The lead singer of Eagles of Death Metal after the Bataclan massacre said that it wouldnt have happened if everyone in the audience had a gun. Whilst i wouldnt dispute that entirely, i think it betrays a weird idea about "safety". If everyone had free access to firearms, do you really think recent terror attacks in Europe would have been (mostly) restricted to people using cars to run over a few pedestrians, and then jump out with kitchen knives wearing fake bomb vests and shouting "Allah Akbar"? Of course not. they would have bought themselves a fire arm and tried to kill as many people as possible. Do you think the free shooting US police are more likely to shoot first and ask questions later because they know that legally anyone can carry a fire arm and is therefore a potential threat to their safety? A gun may make you "feel" safe. But that is a huge difference from "being" safe. Because you can carry a gun, the police are more likely to shoot you. But more importantly, because other people can carry a gun, then there is always a possibility that a fight or an argument may lead to guns and someone being shot. You cant stop people from murdering or maiming people. But you can reduce the risk. And guns (or at least access to them) are an easy and identifiable risk that is possible to control.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Oddly this even does not count as no criminal charges can be filed against the dead driver:

1 October 2017 Greensboro NC, 5 killed (vehicular homicide) (http://www.wxii12.com/article/five-...-of-stolen-car-crashes-in-greensboro/12666873) The driver of a stolen car managed to kill five including himself. So he was not charged and so it does not count.

Why does that not count? Your qualifying criteria don't say anything about criminal charges, and surely some of the things you've included before must have ended with the death of the killer?

 

[Disgustipated]

So I guess all the bodies will be buried there

Probably not in good taste, but I made a couple jokes earlier today at work, so I can't say much.

Sending thoughts and prayers like a good Republican.

Even worse, this is trolling.

You may not like Republican views, and I voted for Republican in 1996, 2000, and 2004 Presidential elections. I still vote Republican for Senate/House, though Democrats for President as the country works best in this configuration. Republicans do have a place, and the 2nd amendment has a place.

I own a pistol and a shotgun, both effective weapons for home defense (and this is the place for the 2nd amendment). I fail to see the need for any kind of semi automatic assault rifle (yes I know even hunting rifles can be construed as assault riles, but seriously who needs a semi automatic hunting rifle- learn to shoot noobs). But I understand how some people want to use them for target practice, and find that fun. I'm hesitant to restrict liberties when I live in a country that is supposed to be about liberty. Regardless, any weapon which has the ability to be converted into a fully automatic weapon should be banned in my view. If you want to fire one for fun, my city and state actually offer places where you can shoot a fully automatic weapon. That should be enough to get your rocks off. I would also seriously consider banning semi automatic long guns as well.

Banning pistols may seem like a good idea as well, especially after Orlando. But seems to be near impossible. They are so small, and can easily be smuggled in through Mexico. If we can't stop drugs, how can we stop pistols?

I know it's easy for Europeans to look down upon us, learn to recognize your differences. You never had a gun culture, and you don't have hundreds of millions of existing weapons. Getting rid of these is impossible. And some nations such as Japan and England as island nations can more strictly control their imports. I think the incident in France 2 years ago shows you can't stop weapons from getting into Europe if there are people who want them. The only reason there aren't more is because the local population doesn't want them, hence what I said above about gun culture. The culture has to change before the laws can be really effective.

 

[Hrothbern]

Im guessing this is sarcasm?

I do think that some people have a warped sense of what keeps them safe though. The lead singer of Eagles of Death Metal after the Bataclan massacre said that it wouldnt have happened if everyone in the audience had a gun. Whilst i wouldnt dispute that entirely, i think it betrays a weird idea about "safety". If everyone had free access to firearms, do you really think recent terror attacks in Europe would have been (mostly) restricted to people using cars to run over a few pedestrians, and then jump out with kitchen knives wearing fake bomb vests and shouting "Allah Akbar"? Of course not. they would have bought themselves a fire arm and tried to kill as many people as possible. Do you think the free shooting US police are more likely to shoot first and ask questions later because they know that legally anyone can carry a fire arm and is therefore a potential threat to their safety? A gun may make you "feel" safe. But that is a huge difference from "being" safe. Because you can carry a gun, the police are more likely to shoot you. But more importantly, because other people can carry a gun, then there is always a possibility that a fight or an argument may lead to guns and someone being shot. You cant stop people from murdering or maiming people. But you can reduce the risk. And guns (or at least access to them) are an easy and identifiable risk that is possible to control.

agree
This is part of a BBC article on it:
"Apart from the laws, the main difference between the UK and the US is the role that guns play in everyday life. In the UK, most gun lovers are involved in shooting sports and are mostly based in the countryside.
The idea of using a gun for self-defence is generally pretty shocking in Britain, even within the shooting community, and most people believe that guns should be the preserve of the police or armed forces".

To consider for the US is that the founding fathers valued the personal right to self defend, to have an armed militia against tyranny, from the old world and any future shape, as so important that it became the second amendment, only after the freedom of speech.
Somehow this outdated purpose is still there in the US culture. If not a foreign threat, then a distrust in the state and state institutions like a police force. A police force that is considered as "good enough" to protect citizens in most developed countries.
I think facts & figures and the logic of first order & second order effects, are and will be of no avail to reduce the enormous amount of avoidable homicides, much bigger in the last half century than the total of all US military and terrorist casualties, including the Civil war, WW2 up to the Iraq war.
I think that if the culture of a US citizen stays that of a pioneer distrusting everything institutionalised around him, big, far away, anonymous....weapon possession and glorification of it, a low treshold to get and use them, will continue.
So if the US cannot get their act together to learn to trust in a moderate realistic fashion, it will continue.

 

[sherbz]

Probably not in good taste, but I made a couple jokes earlier today at work, so I can't say much.
I know it's easy for Europeans to look down upon us, learn to recognize your differences. You never had a gun culture, and you don't have hundreds of millions of existing weapons. Getting rid of these is impossible. And some nations such as Japan and England as island nations can more strictly control their imports. I think the incident in France 2 years ago shows you can't stop weapons from getting into Europe if there are people who want them. The only reason there aren't more is because the local population doesn't want them, hence what I said above about gun culture. The culture has to change before the laws can be really effective.

Dont you think this is a bit nihilistic and defeatist? I take your point that you need to change the culture that goes with guns, but if that is true, you certainly dont affect that culture change by doing the exact same thing you have always been doing.

Another example: Attitudes towards black people, for instance, didnt change over night when you abolished slavery, or gave them rights. But the change in law, i would argue, did slowly bring about about a shift in opinion because it allowed people of ethnic minorities to exercise their rights and engage in the political process. And in the case of slavery, it made them citizens (or at least not slaves). Culture didnt change over night. But the change in law brought about an improvement over a longer period.

So with guns, maybe changing the law will not suddenly cure all problems associated with guns over night. But if you look at it in a wider context, say over a 50 year period. If you abolished guns or put severe restrictions on them legally now, do you think the US would be in a better or worse place in 50 years time? How would gun attitudes be different in 50 years compared to if you just kept the status quo? The answer is surely obvious.

 

[Disgustipated]

Somehow this outdated purpose is still there in the US culture.

The original purpose is outdated, but I still see a use as home defense. Home invasions are a real issue in my city (Las Vegas), especially with a lot of L.A. and Oakland gangs moving here lately. How do you propose I protect myself in such a case? I'm not as physically large as these gang members, so hand to hand is out of the question.

 

[red_elk]

Banning pistols may seem like a good idea as well, especially after Orlando. But seems to be near impossible. They are so small, and can easily be smuggled in through Mexico. If we can't stop drugs, how can we stop pistols?

It's a matter of statistics. You can't completely ban pistols, but if they will be better controlled and less people will possess them, there will be less mass shootings too.

 

[Disgustipated]

you certainly dont affect that culture change by doing the exact same thing you have always been doing.

True enough. Perhaps the U.S. will never learn unless they had suffered two catastrophic world wars on their own homeland as Europe has. That changed Europe's fascination with guns and wars in a hurry.

 

[warpus]

This seems to happen so frequently that I'm almost completely desensitized to it.

 

[Hrothbern]

The original purpose is outdated, but I still see a use as home defense. Home invasions are a real issue in my city (Las Vegas), especially with a lot of L.A. and Oakland gangs moving here lately. How do you propose I protect myself in such a case? I'm not as physically large as these gang members, so hand to hand is out of the question.

Perhaps I would have also if I would live in a place like you describe.
I had some US colleagues and besides talking about work and joking on did you vote Bush ??? (and EU red tape), I talked about everything regarding cultural differences including weapons. They were all sensible responsible house fathers and citizens and some had weapons and were glad that when they were abroad that their wife had a weapon at home.

But I think there is a difference between the weapon patriot and someone seeing a weapon as a necessary evil for unreasonable circumstances.
Circumstances that need to be tackled imo structurally and brought to a level where less and less people need that personal weapons, let go of it.
To consider also is that the amount of police officers in the US is pretty low compared to many other developed countries and substantial less than my country. And they are here not really busy with fining high speed driving and I do not live in a police state.
Building, transforming a society towards less violence takes structural efforts, and cultural changes harvesting upon that, will take a lot of time (in principle generations).
An important key performance indicator for governments and voters is imo trust. It is measured and benchmarked. Trust in your feloow citizen, trust in the law & judges, trust in the institutions, etc. The less trust can be realised, the more individual citizens are left to their own: swim or drown.
The US is a country where the last decades these trust indicators are worsening. Obama did not counter that. Just like so many other Obama actions were superficial, to shallow, from whatever reason.

As long as the weapon patriot is glorified and the government has outsourced too much of the citizens protection to the personal weapon self-defence, leaves her citizens in the dark, why would anything change ?

 

[warpus]

An important key performance indicator for governments and voters is imo trust. It is measured and benchmarked. Trust in your feloow citizen, trust in the law & judges, trust in the institutions, etc.

American culture is almost an anti-thesis to all that. Individuality is rewarded. Look at how many Americans are against universal healthcare - they instead prefer the "every man for himself" approach.

As for not trusting governments and governmental institutions, that is a very American trait too. Or at least seems to be. Don't tread on me and so on.

 

[Hrothbern]

American culture is almost an anti-thesis to all that. Individuality is rewarded. Look at how many Americans are against universal healthcare - they instead prefer the "every man for himself" approach.

As for trusting governments and governmental institutions, that is a very American trait too. Or at least seems to be. Don't tread on me and so on.

I think also,
but you can move up and keep enough of individualty and self reliance.
and if that act is not pulled together, removing, what I think is, the root cause of this abundant amount of weapons in trigger happy hands, this high amount of killings is part of the price.
Every coin has another side as well.

 

[Light Cleric]

American culture is almost an anti-thesis to all that. Individuality is rewarded. Look at how many Americans are against universal healthcare - they instead prefer the "every man for himself" approach..

Well if you look at polling numbers you can actually find support for universal healthcare even on the far right. Even Trump himself has been in favor of it for a long time insofar as Trump can actually have a position on anything.

The problem comes in when they realize it would also help, in their minds, the "wrong" people. You know, colorful ones.

 

[civvver]

Gun culture in america isn't just 2nd amendment and militias and stuff, it's also cus American was a huge wilderness until pretty recently. Even just 100 years ago go out west and you probably would be begging for a gun to protect you from the wildlife and unscrupulous people. We didn't urbanize and suburbanize overnight.

As far as semi auto, ban guns with ammo capacity over a certain amount. That would probably be a happy medium.

 

[warpus]

I think also,
but you can move up and keep enough of individualty and self reliance.
and if that act is not pulled together, removing, what I think is, the root cause of this abundant amount of weapons in trigger happy hands, this high amount of killings is part of the price.
Every coin has another side as well.

Personally I think the main problem is the gun culture that the U.S. has and celebrates. It doesn't exist in any other western country.

It will not be easy to get rid of it either. They view it as a part of their national identity.