Shooting in Texas

[Loonyyy]

So wait... news media "sensationalization" of these events, causes more of them, but pop culture like movies and video games doesn't?

So, Columbine inspire shooters, but Scarface doesn't? So Virginia Tech inspires more, but GTA doesn't? So Sandy hook inspires more, but Matthew Reilly doesn't?

Really gamers, come the fuck on, you're embarrassing me. Stupid speculation about games causing these acts is bad. Moronic defenses by Jim Sterling make us look foolish, and then making exactly the same claim about other forms of media makes us look retarded. The critics of violence in games say it inspires violence, and then we say that the news media reporting on it inspires violence. So, media representations of violence, and the making of celebrities from violent characters inspires violence? You don't see the parallels between the two lines of reasoning?

Before someone gets the wrong idea-I love my violent video games. I split my time between Mount and Blade, Skyrim, Gmod, Red Orchestra and CoD. But we don't need to get all scared about defending them. If they try to ban them, we can stop them. If they say something that's factually in error (Fox on Mass Effect, Jack Thompson on GTA), we can shut them down. When they make stupid connections between things, we can point it out. But try to claim similar things about the news is ridiculous.

Especially when you get all anti-science about it. Here's a list of things that cause aggression:
-Loud violent music
-Swearing
-Violent films
Really, I'd be suprised if violent video games didn't cause aggression. It still wouldn't show that they caused actual violence, and it still wouldn't show that they needed to be banned over anything else. See, science has no problem with it! Of course there are the dodgier people out there (*cough* Susan Greenfield), who are attempting to, with flawed studies, inform people that video games cause violence. Who tears them apart? Science and science media.

Here's some food for thought-maybe they make violent video games because they sell. Maybe they cover school shootings, because that's what people watch above other topics. It's convenient to call the news media leeches and the like, but seriously, we'd expect these things to be reported on. It's the quantity and the availability of the reporting, and the period over which it happens that gets to us. But as long as people are still interested, the news media gets money by doing it, so they keep doing it. The reporting is a by-product of the viewing habits. We can't just get away from it by scapegoating the media as the evil, it's simply giving us what they think we want. It'll change when enough people aren't interested in it any more.

 

[YCRanger]

-snip-

I give up... You'll just use any excuse to spout your lies about how globally proven methods of gun control do not work and how the world will be MUCH safer if every person in the world had access to at least 5 firearms regardless of age, gender, race or mental stability. I look forward to reading more of your trolling in a couple of months time at the next mass shooting in the USA. Just make sure to never come over here to Australia. It's been 11 years since the last shooting and frankly we would like to keep it that way!

I give up too. You'll continue to think of gun control as a one size fits all solution for every country, ignoring the fact that geography and crime dictate how well, if at all, gun control will work for a given place. You'll also somehow continue to believe that a ban on firearms will somehow make all the crazy people not decide to kill people with fire or explosives or something else like that.

I don't know how you got it in your head that I thought children should be allowed to buy RPGs and machine guns. That's stupid. I am opposed to disarming mentally-stable, law-abiding adult citizens, which is currently how Australia does things. Judicious gun control is okay, but to emulate Australia we would be repealing the second amendment. That's not gun control, it's a ban on firearms.

P.S. :Nobody was talking about gun control after the Oklahoma City bombing. Think about it.

Dude Australia = America. Clearly if we just had the same laws that they have on a completely different continent things would work out exactly the same. I don't know why you can't understand that.

 

[Something Amyss]

Buffalo, Syracuse, Rochester, and Albany, the 4 major cities after New York City, has crime comparable to Chicago. NYC is a lot safer than it used to be 20 years ago, but then you have to remember how effing dangerous it was back then. Still higher than average, but not bad all things considered. Probably the ONLY "safe" major population center in the entire state. Course it helped that their police department significantly increased in force whereas the rest of the state has to cut their budget....must be nice.

NYState has some of the lowest gun crime per capita. So if all the major population centers are so dangerous (save NYC)...No, the math doesn't work. Sorry.

Oh, are you talking violence in general? Again, flimsy argument against gun control.

 

[Something Amyss]

It does seem to work. Though I was in high school during most of Bush's presidency and didn't pay much attention until a couple years later so don't recall that >__<

It basically came down to the media reporting all these deaths, civilian and military, and Bush (and his administration) complaining that they only talked about the negative elements of the war.

It's kind of like saying "but think of all the women I didn't rape," and it worked.

HUZZAH!

 

[WorriedSandwich]

Its like theyre trying to get as many shootings in before the assault weapon ban

I am most certainly going to hell for this.

 

[Edl01]

I don't get the point in these arguments. The people who don't want their guns taken away are clearly not willing to change their stance due to these crimes and if that won't do you think a forum debate will?
I am glad it seems it was on a small scale. But this is getting ridiculous.

 

[Edl01]

There's actually quite a few more outside the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting

The main point is though that the US isn't on that page. It's got it's own separate page. Which is larger than the entire rest of the world combined. Several times larger in fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

I'd personally say that's a bit odd to say the least.

This...just this.

 

[Lieju]

As for self-defence, well sure I guess; but leaving a loaded gun laying around just increases the likelihood that it'll fall into the hands of someone who'll go and shoot up a school.

Or, more likely, someone like a child or a drunk person gets their hands on it and inadvertedly hurts either themselves or someone else.

Really, I think that's a bigger problem than crazy mass murderers.
I live on the countryside, and see a lot of hunting. I agree hunting is necessary to control some animal populations, but a lot of hunters don't follow the safety procedures all that closely.

 

[LGC Pominator]

what if anti-gun activists are going out shooting ppl in the hopes of changes being made?

Wow... that is some Alex Jones tier crazy theory there, I love it!
Come to think of it the conspiracy theory by Beck that Alex Jones IS the conspiracy was also pretty damn funny, basically the idea was to make their side of the argument look so unhinged that arguing in their favour would look similarly crazy.

As for the topic at hand, does anyone else find it upsetting that our response to this now is just "oh no one died / only 3 people were injured, thats not news!" Kinda worrying when you look at it in context.
This whole gun thing is kinda mental, especially when you hear all the talk about "protecting second amendment rights" when most of these people don't actually seem to belong to an actual, well regulated, state militia... you know, like the second amendment provides you the right to belong to?

Oh wait the "second amendment" is just "the right to bear arms" nothing else, silly foreign me.

For the record, since I know I will probably get hate for this either way, I am going to just throw it out there that the whole gun argument is something that I would normally have no interest in, but whenever I hear some news coming out of the states these days it is ALL gun stuff, frankly its kind of annoying, can you all like... stop with the gun obsession or something? it really isn't helping any of us

 

[AgedGrunt]

This whole gun thing is kinda mental, especially when you hear all the talk about "protecting second amendment rights" when most of these people don't actually seem to belong to an actual, well regulated, state militia... you know, like the second amendment provides you the right to belong to?

Oh wait the "second amendment" is just "the right to bear arms" nothing else, silly foreign me.

First of all, there are militias (billed under "nuts" by many). Secondly, the Constitution doesn't say the people have to exercise every right. It is a blueprint of government, powers the people are entrusting to it and their rights. People are not required to form a militia any more than own a firearm. They do not need to petition government, redress grievances or join a religion; you are free to do so if you choose. Is the concept of liberty so difficult to understand?

...whenever I hear some news coming out of the states these days it is ALL gun stuff, frankly its kind of annoying, can you all like... stop with the gun obsession or something? it really isn't helping any of us

If it's all gun-related news, what does that say about media? Who is really obsessing over guns here? It couldn't be television, journalists, politicians and people, such as those on this forum, that make thread after thread, pages upon pages of Chicken Little freak-out responses stirring up all this controversy. Then the vitriol against guns, the second amendment, gun owners/culture and the NRA itself as if the objects, the Constitution and law-abiding, peaceful people put the guns in the hands of these mass shooters.

Do you know what the statistically deadliest thing to man is? Malaria. Who is talking about that? Certainly not the mainstream media, politicians and definitely not the Escapist. I mean, who cares about those millions dead?

One more thing, when politicians want to ban all AR- and AK- rifles, including a lot of other powerful weapons, what's the militia supposed to arm itself with? I'm surprised someone is even suggesting Americans can form a militia; many think the entire role of the amendment has been properly displaced by the government they adhere to and obey (read: cling to and lobby against all restriction, which sounds awfully familiar).

 

[Mcupobob]

On the subject of shootings, since that seems to be the topic. Why not start going Ancient Greek on these guys, stuff them in a bag throw them in the ocean and delete them form history making it a crime to say their name... Though in the age of the Internet that could be difficult.

 

[Mazza35]

Guys guys guys,

You have it ALL wrong, it's fucking Texas, obviously these two gentlemen were having a duel, now yes it's a modern style duel but obviously one insulted the others mother/intelligence/weight and or sexual orientation, so they were forced to duel with pistols, but unbeknown to them, the janitor foolish stood behind one of them and got hit as a result.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duel

CAPTCHA: Dueling Banjos, yes Captcha, I believe it was.

 

[Mr.BadExample]

obviously these two gentlemen were having a duel

Nope. Just
Suspected gunman in Lone Star College shooting: "Someone bumped me" [http://www.kvue.com/news/Suspected-gunman-in-Lone-Star-College-shooting-arrested-188342941.html]

"Records show Foster has a criminal history that includes charges of resisting arrest and possession of a prohibited weapon."

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Two people being shot counts as a mass shooting?

I would agree with this sentiment. Two people is a small enough number that there could be plenty of reasons beyond homicidal insanity to look for explanation.

Still, it does beg the question of how many is a mass shooting? Is there a number or is it all about the intent of the shooter. Kinda makes me think there should be a word or phrase beyond "mass shooting" to describe the phenomena.

 

[Xanex]

Two people being shot counts as a mass shooting?

This is Texas. If this happened in Chicago it wouldn't even be news worthy. And yes this is happening more due to media turning it into big media stories and making the shooters into a celeb of sorts.

 

[DanDeFool]

I agree entirely. Of course, I'd prefer we try something that actually has some chance of success rather than something that is doomed to failure from the get-go. Of course, civilization has been trying to stop this kind of shit for millennia (and have been way more successful than they get credit for, by the way), so I'd be happy to hear an alternative that isn't based on myopic, reactionary bullshit.

You mean gun control? So are you one of the people who writes off Australia's success as an anomaly?

I mean the US had an assault weapons ban for 5 years via Clinton and because of a lack of definitive evidence that it was effecting a solution, people use it as definitive proof that such measures wont work. Has no one considered the possibility that such measures need to be used long term, or that perhaps it wasn't strict enough, etcetera.

Before you call Australia's gun ban a "success" you should read [URL="http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp" (title,target)]this[/URL]. Sounds more like "slight modification to the status-quo" than "success" to me. And if you believe [URL="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html" (title,target)] this guy[/URL], Britain's attempts at strict gun control laws have been an outright failure.

I also agree that gun control won't work unless you're strict enough. Unfortunately, I think being strict enough for this to work means declaring martial law, suspending our protection from unreasonable search-and-seizure, and ordering the military and municipal police forces to do a rigorous house-by-house, building-by-building search to make sure they get ALL the guns.

That depends upon how you qualify the word "success". If the intent of the new law was to prevent mass murder, then in both cases it has succeeded has it not? There have not been any mass shootings in either Australia or England from what I understand since both of those events.

In the case of England, I think the article you've quoted is misleading, as are most articles with some intent or argument (ie bias) behind them. If you look at the actual government numbers, you can see that gun violence was trending upwards for decades.

http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01940.pdf

And while the new laws did see a spike in use of certain weapons, it has peaked in recent years and is on the decline to the point of 1998 levels. Though the 2012 year may not have followed that trend as the pdf doesn't list data from that year.

Either way. I think what's important in any such study is to look at the effects long term, not short term. People complain that some of these intended measures are reactionary, but then those same people point to short term statistics as proof of their failure. Point is, it's just as reactionary to abandon an approach after a few years as it is to create a new law based on one or two specific events.

Policy changes like this are intended as a long term solution, their effectiveness should be addressed in the long term not the short term. If Britain's statistics hold true and if gun crime continues to decline and if gun control is in fact behind that decline in part or in whole then that I think is more evidence towards the effectiveness of the measures rather than to their failure.

The problem with democracy as a whole is that most governments are only looking towards the next election and thus long term solutions rarely take hold because few people are looking long term, they're only looking as far as the next election. Further people want instant results and instant gratification but changing a culture and its acceptance or perception of guns is a long term process.


And yes, if someone is committed to killing people they can find other means to do so. But this defence quite frankly is shallow and irrelevant. Because neither knives nor bombs nor other means are as easy and simple and as effective to use as guns. Anyone can pick up a gun and kill another human being, the fact that small children regularly kill one another by accident with guns is proof of that.

One need only look to the frequency of their use to see the ease of how often they are used. Firearm murder outnumbers murder by knife by a ratio of more than 5:1 in the united states. http://projects.wsj.com/murderdata/#view=all . Firearm outnumebrs explosives by a ratio of 2000:1

All good points. I agree that the effects of legislation have to be considered long-term, but you also have to consider their effects broadly as well. I tend to agree that a broad ban on legal firearm ownership would likely decrease the type of mass murder we're currently discussing, but what effect would it have on other types of crime? This is why I think we would need to be aggressive about policing illegal weapons in addition to disarming the general public; if you don't simultaneously make a concerted effort to disarm violent criminals, solving the mass shooting problem could exacerbate other forms of violent crime , possibly leading to greater loss of life in the long run. I don't have any statistics on this, so take with as many grains of salt as you like. Still, something we should be thinking about.

Also, I think my point about alternative forms of violence holds more water in the context of a broad ban on firearms. Yes, at the moment, guns are an easy and readily available way of causing mass casualties. My point is that taking guns away doesn't resolve the root cause; you still have someone who wants to kill people. As long as you have a killer, they'll find a weapon. However, I do have to concede that other means of inflicting mass causalities are either much less effective (bladed weapons), or much more complicated (explosives) than firearms.

Ultimately, I would rather see this problem be resolved through increased awareness of the need to secure personal weapons and a focus on readily available care for the mentally ill. Repealing the second amendment seems like an excessive decision that punishes the many for the actions of the few.

Besides, for the public at large, we're all still far more likely to die in a car accident or from heart disease than from getting shot to death. Mass shootings create a lot of drama, but it's important to keep these risks in perspective. On the whole, preventing future mass shootings won't net the average American any more than an incremental gain in personal safety, at best. We should consider carefully how much we're willing to pay for a small improvement.