1 2 3 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Mass Shooting in America

 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  9617
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
03 September 2019 07:51
 

This thread is for reporting the number of mass shooting stories found in American news media.  Instead of starting a new thread each time there is another mass shooting just put the story here as a central location.

Today’s news is from Alabama as a 14-year-old boy confessed to shooting five family members.  Three are dead and two in critical condition.

 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1807
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
03 September 2019 07:55
 

Discussion too, for this thread? Or just the facts?

 
 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  9617
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
03 September 2019 12:41
 
nonverbal - 03 September 2019 07:55 AM

Discussion too, for this thread? Or just the facts?

Mostly just facts to keep it on topic, especially for me because I’m a leading suspect of going off the rails on the topic of guns.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7119
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
03 September 2019 12:56
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2019

297 US Mass shootings as of Aug 31 in 2019.  (302 as of Sept 2, 2019)

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6762
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
03 September 2019 14:21
 

Here’s an interesting piece of information about the Odessa shooter, from The Hill:

The suspect in a mass shooting that killed seven over the weekend in Odessa, Texas, reportedly obtained the gun through a private sale, which does not require a background check in the state.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) had earlier stated that Seth Ator had failed a background check for a previous gun purchase and did not undergo one for the weapon used in the shooting, while authorities had said he had been flagged as a “prohibited person” legally prohibited from owning or buying a firearm.

Texas is one of several states where, in a private sale, gun owners are not allowed to sell firearms to buyers they know are flagged but they are not obligated to conduct background checks or ask the buyer, according to ABC News.

If true, this would mark the first time (that I’m aware of) that a mass murderer obtained his firearm from a so-called “private party.” While it is illegal to “knowingly” sell a firearm to a prohibited person, it’s next to impossible to determine whether the seller “knew.”

Most private party transfers are between family members or close friends, which is a big reason why universal background checks are unpopular among gun owners. But selling a firearm to someone you don’t know? That, to me, is the height of irresponsibility. At a minimum, the law should be changed to remove the word, “knowingly.” It should be legally incumbent upon the seller to determine whether the buyer is prohibited from possessing firearms. If the seller doesn’t know the buyer, she can always make the transfer through a licensed dealer, who would request a background check on the buyer.

I think law enforcement should identify the seller in this case. Even if she didn’t violate any laws, she deserves to be treated like a pariah at best, an accomplice at worst. There might even be grounds for a civil suit.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21597
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
03 September 2019 14:34
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 03 September 2019 02:21 PM

Here’s an interesting piece of information about the Odessa shooter, from The Hill:

The suspect in a mass shooting that killed seven over the weekend in Odessa, Texas, reportedly obtained the gun through a private sale, which does not require a background check in the state.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) had earlier stated that Seth Ator had failed a background check for a previous gun purchase and did not undergo one for the weapon used in the shooting, while authorities had said he had been flagged as a “prohibited person” legally prohibited from owning or buying a firearm.

Texas is one of several states where, in a private sale, gun owners are not allowed to sell firearms to buyers they know are flagged but they are not obligated to conduct background checks or ask the buyer, according to ABC News.

If true, this would mark the first time (that I’m aware of) that a mass murderer obtained his firearm from a so-called “private party.” While it is illegal to “knowingly” sell a firearm to a prohibited person, it’s next to impossible to determine whether the seller “knew.”

Most private party transfers are between family members or close friends, which is a big reason why universal background checks are unpopular among gun owners. But selling a firearm to someone you don’t know? That, to me, is the height of irresponsibility. At a minimum, the law should be changed to remove the word, “knowingly.” It should be legally incumbent upon the seller to determine whether the buyer is prohibited from possessing firearms. If the seller doesn’t know the buyer, she can always make the transfer through a licensed dealer, who would request a background check on the buyer.

I think law enforcement should identify the seller in this case. Even if she didn’t violate any laws, she deserves to be treated like a pariah at best, an accomplice at worst. There might even be grounds for a civil suit.

On 9/1 Texas loosened its gun laws even more. I agree that background checks should be universal, including private sales.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7119
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
03 September 2019 16:23
 
EN - 03 September 2019 02:34 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 03 September 2019 02:21 PM

Here’s an interesting piece of information about the Odessa shooter, from The Hill:

The suspect in a mass shooting that killed seven over the weekend in Odessa, Texas, reportedly obtained the gun through a private sale, which does not require a background check in the state.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) had earlier stated that Seth Ator had failed a background check for a previous gun purchase and did not undergo one for the weapon used in the shooting, while authorities had said he had been flagged as a “prohibited person” legally prohibited from owning or buying a firearm.

Texas is one of several states where, in a private sale, gun owners are not allowed to sell firearms to buyers they know are flagged but they are not obligated to conduct background checks or ask the buyer, according to ABC News.

If true, this would mark the first time (that I’m aware of) that a mass murderer obtained his firearm from a so-called “private party.” While it is illegal to “knowingly” sell a firearm to a prohibited person, it’s next to impossible to determine whether the seller “knew.”

Most private party transfers are between family members or close friends, which is a big reason why universal background checks are unpopular among gun owners. But selling a firearm to someone you don’t know? That, to me, is the height of irresponsibility. At a minimum, the law should be changed to remove the word, “knowingly.” It should be legally incumbent upon the seller to determine whether the buyer is prohibited from possessing firearms. If the seller doesn’t know the buyer, she can always make the transfer through a licensed dealer, who would request a background check on the buyer.

I think law enforcement should identify the seller in this case. Even if she didn’t violate any laws, she deserves to be treated like a pariah at best, an accomplice at worst. There might even be grounds for a civil suit.

On 9/1 Texas loosened its gun laws even more. I agree that background checks should be universal, including private sales.

Ignorance of the law is not a defense against the law.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6762
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
03 September 2019 17:40
 
Jefe - 03 September 2019 04:23 PM

Ignorance of the law is not a defense against the law.

Ignorance of the law isn’t the issue. It’s ignorance of whether the buyer is a “prohibited person” (prohibited from possessing firearms). The law—vis-a-vis private party transfers—says you can’t “knowingly” sell a firearm to a prohibited person. But the law does not require the seller to find out whether the buyer is a prohibited person.

In other words, if you already know the buyer is a prohibited person and you sell him a firearm anyway, then you’ve broken the law. But if you don’t already know it, you’re off the hook. That’s the part that needs changing, IMO. There’s no excuse for selling a firearm to someone you don’t know, not without a background check.

BUT—it’s still unclear how the Odessa shooter got his firearm. All we know is that he was a prohibited person who presumably did not undergo a background check prior to purchasing it.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3430
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
03 September 2019 18:01
 
Skipshot - 03 September 2019 07:51 AM

Today’s news is from Alabama as a 14-year-old boy confessed to shooting five family members.  Three are dead and two in critical condition.

The story of the 14-year-old boy who has killed his family (the two wounded have since died) could so easily have been prevented.  No adolescent should have access to a gun under any circumstances (except perhaps hunting under close adult supervision); an emotional age when there is little impulse control.  Hopefully this tragic story has alerted parents to hide and lock up their guns if they must have them.

 

 
 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  9617
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
03 September 2019 18:23
 
Jefe - 03 September 2019 12:56 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2019

297 US Mass shootings as of Aug 31 in 2019.  (302 as of Sept 2, 2019)

This is helpful and makes the stated purpose of this thread redundant, so perhaps this thread could evolve into a discussion of what can or should be done, if anything, about the status of owning guns in the U.S.

That the federal government is specifically prohibited from conducting studies related to firearms allows for confusion and deception to rule over a discussion on guns since different sources of the compiled information have different definitions and no accountability, but perhaps we should avoid splitting those hairs and keep to the topic of the whether gun laws as they currently exist are worth it.

I am an open book on the topic - repeal the 2nd Amendment and re-write gun laws to be in line with other developed republics.  The reason for my position is that as the 2nd Amendment is written and interpreted by the Supreme Court, any gun control laws could arguably be unconstitutional.  I have not read the Heller decision which ruled that the 2nd Amendment is written as an individual, as opposed to a collective, right, and was a major victory for gun rights.  It meant that a person has a constitutional right to own a firearm, which is unique in the world today.  What this means to me is that regulating a right with laws is much more difficult, as it should be.  To me, the ruling allows anyone to challenge laws about who, what, where, when, and how guns may be regulated.  For example, when one is convicted of a violent felony one loses the right to own a firearm under current laws.  But this calls into question that if one right may be lost upon conviction, what other rights may be lost?  Can the entire Bill Of Rights be revoked upon conviction of a crime, or just parts?  If specific rights are lost automatically, what is the framework for deciding which ones are lost?  I cannot find in the Constitution where it says the Bill Of Rights is revocable upon conviction.

We automatically lose the right to firearms when entering certain government buildings and airports, but we do not lose any other rights, so why are firearms an exception?  What difference does it make where one exercises a right when in a public place?

To be clear, I am not advocating banning guns.  Keep your guns, and keep as many as you like.  Just treat them like anything else which is regulated.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7119
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
04 September 2019 09:43
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 03 September 2019 05:40 PM
Jefe - 03 September 2019 04:23 PM

Ignorance of the law is not a defense against the law.

Ignorance of the law isn’t the issue. It’s ignorance of whether the buyer is a “prohibited person” (prohibited from possessing firearms). The law—vis-a-vis private party transfers—says you can’t “knowingly” sell a firearm to a prohibited person. But the law does not require the seller to find out whether the buyer is a prohibited person.

In other words, if you already know the buyer is a prohibited person and you sell him a firearm anyway, then you’ve broken the law. But if you don’t already know it, you’re off the hook. That’s the part that needs changing, IMO. There’s no excuse for selling a firearm to someone you don’t know, not without a background check.

BUT—it’s still unclear how the Odessa shooter got his firearm. All we know is that he was a prohibited person who presumably did not undergo a background check prior to purchasing it.

It seems like an unenforceable law to me.
Too many clause-outs based on he-said/she-said.

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7119
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
04 September 2019 09:47
 
Skipshot - 03 September 2019 06:23 PM

Just treat them like anything else which is regulated.

Agreed.
Many safety regulations are in-place for people who drive personal vehicles.
Many safety regulations are in-place for people who operate heavy equipment.
Many safety regulations are in-place for people who operate vehicles that transport the public on air, sea and land.

Safety regulations should be in-place for firearms purchasing, ownership, carriage, and usage.

It’s just common sense.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6762
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
04 September 2019 13:48
 

San Francisco Board of Supervisors designates NRA domestic terrorist organization

SAN FRANCISCO (KTVU) - The city of San Francisco has formally adopted a resolution calling the National Rifle Association a domestic terrorist organization.

San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors on Tuesday took the step of officially declaring the nation’s premier gun-ownership advocates a terrorist organization.

District 2 Supervisor Catherine Stefani wrote the scathing declaration reading in part, “the National Rifle Association spreads propaganda that misinforms and aims to deceive the public about the dangers of gun violence.”

The problem with so-called “reasonable” gun regulation is that it often comes from people like Stefani, who think that designating the NRA a “domestic terrorist organization” is a good idea. Can you spot the obvious problem—from the standpoint of an anti-NRA position?

The NRA couldn’t ask for better fund-raising material! They’re still recycling Diane Feinstein’s quote from over twenty years ago: “If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!” I guarantee they’ll have a field day with SF’s resolution.

 
 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  9617
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
04 September 2019 17:44
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 04 September 2019 01:48 PM

San Francisco Board of Supervisors designates NRA domestic terrorist organization

SAN FRANCISCO (KTVU) - The city of San Francisco has formally adopted a resolution calling the National Rifle Association a domestic terrorist organization.

San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors on Tuesday took the step of officially declaring the nation’s premier gun-ownership advocates a terrorist organization.

District 2 Supervisor Catherine Stefani wrote the scathing declaration reading in part, “the National Rifle Association spreads propaganda that misinforms and aims to deceive the public about the dangers of gun violence.”

The problem with so-called “reasonable” gun regulation is that it often comes from people like Stefani, who think that designating the NRA a “domestic terrorist organization” is a good idea. Can you spot the obvious problem—from the standpoint of an anti-NRA position?

The NRA couldn’t ask for better fund-raising material! They’re still recycling Diane Feinstein’s quote from over twenty years ago: “If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!” I guarantee they’ll have a field day with SF’s resolution.

The NRA’s position is to scare everyone into owning guns with worst-case-scenarios, so anything which leads to gun regulations is turned into a slippery slope of banning guns and leaving everyone defenseless against criminals, who will quickly rule the country.  And if petty criminals don’t ruin the country then the government will once they know the people are disarmed.  These claims do not jibe with any other developed nation today.

The same people who distrust the government to justify keeping their guns often fully support giving the government more money to make the military more powerful and militarizing police forces, which apparently can be repelled with handguns and rifles.  smh

 
Billy Shears
 
Avatar
 
 
Billy Shears
Total Posts:  2807
Joined  09-10-2006
 
 
 
08 September 2019 15:24
 
Skipshot - 04 September 2019 05:44 PM

The NRA’s position is to scare everyone into owning guns with worst-case-scenarios, so anything which leads to gun regulations is turned into a slippery slope of banning guns and leaving everyone defenseless against criminals, who will quickly rule the country.  And if petty criminals don’t ruin the country then the government will once they know the people are disarmed.  These claims do not jibe with any other developed nation today.

Then you simply haven’t looked very hard.  Venezuela was, a short time ago, the richest and most developed country in Latin America.  Look at it today.  In 2013, Hugo Chavez banned the legal commercial sale of guns and munitions to all - except government entities.  Tienamen Square was simply not that long ago, if you want another example of an authoritarian country trampling the rights of its disarmed population.  Not to invoke Godwin’s law, but I would also remind you that in 1900, Germany was the most technologically, politically, socially, and culturally developed nation on the planet.  Before that century was even half over, it was a murder machine the like of which had never been seen in human history.  And one of the things Germany did along the way was disarm its populace—and actually, strict gun control was enacted during the Weimar Republic, before the Nazis came to power (the Reichsgesetz über Schusswaffen und Munition (Reich law on firearms and ammunition), enacted on 12 April 1928).  I’m sure the politicians who passed that law were well-meaning people who simply didn’t think citizens’ ability to own arms should be uncontrolled or loosely controlled—just like proponents of gun control today.  But they sure made life easier for the tyrant when he came along.  You never know what the future will bring.

Nobody I know of, in or out of the NRA, is predicting that if Americans turn over all their guns, we will be a fascist or communist-like tyranny tomorrow.  But that doesn’t mean we couldn’t be one a hundred years from now, and preserving the ability of the populace to resist was always meant to be one of the safeguard against that eventually happening.

Skipshot - 04 September 2019 05:44 PM

The same people who distrust the government to justify keeping their guns often fully support giving the government more money to make the military more powerful and militarizing police forces, which apparently can be repelled with handguns and rifles.  smh

I share your confusion.  The same people who think police are a bunch of racist thugs who practically hunt minorities for sport also think they should be the only people in this country with the guns.

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15848
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
08 September 2019 17:10
 
Billy Shears - 08 September 2019 03:24 PM
Skipshot - 04 September 2019 05:44 PM

The NRA’s position is to scare everyone into owning guns with worst-case-scenarios, so anything which leads to gun regulations is turned into a slippery slope of banning guns and leaving everyone defenseless against criminals, who will quickly rule the country.  And if petty criminals don’t ruin the country then the government will once they know the people are disarmed.  These claims do not jibe with any other developed nation today.

Then you simply haven’t looked very hard.  Venezuela was, a short time ago, the richest and most developed country in Latin America.  Look at it today.  In 2013, Hugo Chavez banned the legal commercial sale of guns and munitions to all - except government entities.  Tienamen Square was simply not that long ago, if you want another example of an authoritarian country trampling the rights of its disarmed population.  Not to invoke Godwin’s law, but I would also remind you that in 1900, Germany was the most technologically, politically, socially, and culturally developed nation on the planet.  Before that century was even half over, it was a murder machine the like of which had never been seen in human history.  And one of the things Germany did along the way was disarm its populace—and actually, strict gun control was enacted during the Weimar Republic, before the Nazis came to power (the Reichsgesetz über Schusswaffen und Munition (Reich law on firearms and ammunition), enacted on 12 April 1928).  I’m sure the politicians who passed that law were well-meaning people who simply didn’t think citizens’ ability to own arms should be uncontrolled or loosely controlled—just like proponents of gun control today.  But they sure made life easier for the tyrant when he came along.  You never know what the future will bring.

Nobody I know of, in or out of the NRA, is predicting that if Americans turn over all their guns, we will be a fascist or communist-like tyranny tomorrow.  But that doesn’t mean we couldn’t be one a hundred years from now, and preserving the ability of the populace to resist was always meant to be one of the safeguard against that eventually happening.

Skipshot - 04 September 2019 05:44 PM

The same people who distrust the government to justify keeping their guns often fully support giving the government more money to make the military more powerful and militarizing police forces, which apparently can be repelled with handguns and rifles.  smh

I share your confusion.  The same people who think police are a bunch of racist thugs who practically hunt minorities for sport also think they should be the only people in this country with the guns.

The point is that it’s not an either/or issue. The examples you give are pretty flagrant, why not look at, say, England, France, Switzerland, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Australia, and Canada? But the NRA, as a tool of gun manufactures and the radical right, doesn’t want any sort of compromise at all. Of course there are a few total abolition nuts on the left, but most people want some sort of reasonable compromise to take place.

 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›