General "mass killings" thread

[Sias]

19 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

Frankly in general I trust the government way more than the individual. The idea that the government has some kind of agenda to hurt the people is foolishness.

I don't know, there are definitely some cases where you could say that the government does hurt its people (e.g. healthcare issues, wars, lacking gun control). Though I have to agree that most of the anti-government people are usually very right-wing and then proceed to decry every progressive policy ever as the root of all evil, so yeah. :/

[Moblin Major General]

56 minutes ago, Sias said:

I don't know, there are definitely some cases where you could say that the government does hurt its people (e.g. healthcare issues, wars, lacking gun control). Though I have to agree that most of the anti-government people are usually very right-wing and then proceed to decry every progressive policy ever as the root of all evil, so yeah. :/

He's living in Europe, where the last time the governments put their own interests above the people's, it caused 2 costly wars from which the continent has yet to truly recover from, and also led to the Cold War. North America, on the other hand, borders on hegemonic, meaning that it would be unthinkable for any country to change anything, as there is little incentive to, unlike Europe.

[blah the Prussian]

6 hours ago, Sias said:

I don't know, there are definitely some cases where you could say that the government does hurt its people (e.g. healthcare issues, wars, lacking gun control). Though I have to agree that most of the anti-government people are usually very right-wing and then proceed to decry every progressive policy ever as the root of all evil, so yeah. :/

Well but that's through lack of action, and it isn't from malice, really. I was more referring to the idea gun nuts have that the government is perpetually trying to install a dictatorship.

[Sias]

On 25.2.2018 at 4:57 AM, Hylian Air Force said:

He's living in Europe, where the last time the governments put their own interests above the people's, it caused 2 costly wars from which the continent has yet to truly recover from, and also led to the Cold War. North America, on the other hand, borders on hegemonic, meaning that it would be unthinkable for any country to change anything, as there is little incentive to, unlike Europe.

 

19 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

Well but that's through lack of action, and it isn't from malice, really. I was more referring to the idea gun nuts have that the government is perpetually trying to install a dictatorship.

I'm living in Europe as well. :)
But yes, I do agree that the gun nuts' idea about some secret deep state working in coalition with the left-ish media and continually staging things like the Russia investigation or mass shootings is total nonsense.

I still stand by my point though that even European governments mishandle a lot of things as well due to being either (willfully) misinformed or prioritizing other interests (mailny corporate ones) over that of the general public.

[Tetragrammaton]

On 2/22/2018 at 6:57 AM, eclipse said:

What are you even trying to say?

It is a part of the US culture, it is in their vein.

Remove their culture, they will lose themselves.

And we will not have great things like

or

or

And I'm pretty sure that this would not happen if they did not have a gun culture in the first place

 

[Flee Fleet!]

31 minutes ago, hanhnn said:

It is a part of the US culture, it is in their vein.

Remove their culture, they will lose themselves.

So basically

 

you're like, mocking the US.

 

Which was pretty clear from your post before, dunno why people got confused, lol. 

But, anyways, regarding the gun stuff: I'm all for gun control/ I don't see why we shouldn't have gun control as there doesn't seem to be any big disadvantage from it (well, it would be a disadvantage for gun nuts, I guess?)

And regarding teachers being armed: no. Just have more security or something.

[ping]

PSA: If hanhnn posts in Serious Discussions, it will be anti-american bullshit 99.9% of the time. Looking for actual substance in his contributions is a futile endeavour.

[blah the Prussian]

8 hours ago, Sias said:

I still stand by my point though that even European governments mishandle a lot of things as well due to being either (willfully) misinformed or prioritizing other interests (mailny corporate ones) over that of the general public.

Well, yeah, but none of those are cases belli for rebellion, at least not in my book. That's another thing I'd like to see gun nuts answer, incidentally: how do we define government tyranny? I'm just saying, regimes installed by violent revolution have just about the worst track record in history as far as respecting human rights goes.

[Jotari]

2 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

Well, yeah, but none of those are cases belli for rebellion, at least not in my book. That's another thing I'd like to see gun nuts answer, incidentally: how do we define government tyranny? I'm just saying, regimes installed by violent revolution have just about the worst track record in history as far as respecting human rights goes.

Besides, a couple of guys with assault rifles wouldn't stand a chance against the American army if it came to open rebellion. To stay true to the spirit of the second amendment, citizens would need to have access to attack copters and missile launchers. Which I hope even the most enthusiastic gun owner would agree it would be absurd to give everyone easy access to such things.

[Johann]

14 hours ago, Flee Fleet! said:

And regarding teachers being armed: no. Just have more security or something.

Increasing security is a well-meaning effort with minimal results-- you can't protect everywhere, and shooters plan the shit out of their attacks, including studying what others have done in the past (seeing what works and what doesn't). Best things we can do are more preventative, like better sharing of intelligence (which is one of our most effective strategies in thwarting terrorists), and giving kids the support they need.

[Tryhard]

The thing that gets me more than anything is the whole conspiracy theorist thing where they always think every shooting is a plot to take away dah guns.

It's really disgusting how these people manipulate a situation in order to call the victims actors because they're paranoid about their guns. And it's not like the guns have really been touched - if the "guberment" was trying to take away firearms, they are doing a pretty piss poor job of it. These people cite Sandy Hook as a hoax and yet NOTHING EVER HAPPENED.

I wonder if this type of thinking is just prevalent over there - America also does have the most amount of people who are climate change deniers, or anti-vaxxers. Those types of things usually go together.

Edited February 27, 2018 by Tryhard

[Takumeme]

My problem with people saying that we could take away guns need to realize that, the criminal is going to do a mass shooting, why would they care about the law.

 

(Man walks into school with gun, “Oh darn, it’s against the law to have guns.” Drops gun and runs away)

A way to back this argument is with the prohibition in like the 1920s people just made Moonshine and drank their cares away, despite the fact that drinking Alcohol is illegal.

[Time the Crestfallen]

13 minutes ago, Takumeme said:

My problem with people saying that we could take away guns need to realize that, the criminal is going to do a mass shooting, why would they care about the law.

It's not about changing the intent, it's about making it harder to pull off. Stricter gun control laws demonstratively have a tangible result on the frequency and severity of these sorts of events, as has been discussed earlier in this very thread.

[Acacia Sgt]

If I may, some people do back down on things if the effort to do it increases significantly. How many shootings were done with legally-aquired guns? Do you think all of them, if they didn't had them and weren't capable of getting one legally, would actually go through the hassle/effort/patience to get one illegaly? No, not all of them. It does have an impact.

Even in the case of Prohibition, not every person who once drank alcohol was up there getting some illegaly, were they? And it's not like things were fine and dandy for the ones who were going on making/drinking it illegaly, either.

[Flee Fleet!]

12 hours ago, Johann said:

Increasing security is a well-meaning effort with minimal results-- you can't protect everywhere, and shooters plan the shit out of their attacks, including studying what others have done in the past (seeing what works and what doesn't). Best things we can do are more preventative, like better sharing of intelligence (which is one of our most effective strategies in thwarting terrorists), and giving kids the support they need.

Ah, I see then, that seems to be a better solution. What could be other alternatives, besides for gun control,  if you don't mind me asking?

[Excellen Browning]

2 hours ago, Flee Fleet! said:

Ah, I see then, that seems to be a better solution. What could be other alternatives, besides for gun control,  if you don't mind me asking?

Nothing. It's literally sticking a bandaid on a big open, festering wound.

10 hours ago, Acacia Sgt said:

If I may, some people do back down on things if the effort to do it increases significantly. How many shootings were done with legally-aquired guns? Do you think all of them, if they didn't had them and weren't capable of getting one legally, would actually go through the hassle/effort/patience to get one illegaly? No, not all of them. It does have an impact.

Even in the case of Prohibition, not every person who once drank alcohol was up there getting some illegaly, were they? And it's not like things were fine and dandy for the ones who were going on making/drinking it illegaly, either.

All mass shootings in the US were done with legally acquired guns.

And yes, if they didn't have access to guns, they wouldn't have happened.

Edited February 27, 2018 by Excellen Browning

[John Denver Fan]

17 hours ago, Phillius the Crestfallen said:

It's not about changing the intent, it's about making it harder to pull off. Stricter gun control laws demonstratively have a tangible result on the frequency and severity of these sorts of events, as has been discussed earlier in this very thread.

Stricter gun control laws may not prevent it, but delay the inevitable, so people could wait for the legal age for guns with stricter gun laws or even lie about their background using loopholes in the law. It could be many years of planning if the person in question is a minor.

[Jotari]

12 minutes ago, John Denver Fan said:

Stricter gun control laws may not prevent it, but delay the inevitable, so people could wait for the legal age for guns with stricter gun laws or even lie about their background using loopholes in the law. It could be many years of planning if the person in question is a minor.

Or it could reduce the number of shootings down to the amount other countries are at.

[Johann]

10 hours ago, Flee Fleet! said:

Ah, I see then, that seems to be a better solution. What could be other alternatives, besides for gun control,  if you don't mind me asking?

Mostly it's just gun control and creating better communities for people who are at risk. Once a person (student or otherwise) is on site with a weapon, we've pretty much already lost the day. Reducing the amount of damage they can do (ie: taking away absurdly powerful weaponry) is a high priority, only topped by preventing them from carrying it out in the first place. Gun control is a deterrent-- people are less likely to engage in activities that are harder to carry out.

Consider that, aside from 9/11, every terror attack we've had in the US has been carried out by US citizens who have become radicalized one way or another. This leads us to look at why people become radicalized, which tend to be for the same reasons; a vengeful sense of feeling shunned by society, being impressionable or otherwise swayed by a hateful message (ie: propaganda), and a conviction that violent action will advance their agenda. We can manage this is by providing better emotional/social support for people and combating the message (or the means to deliver the message), as well as tracking people who are engaging in it.

I don't have time to go into greater detail but I can go on about this later if you'd like.

[Jotari]

I'd also try and increase and encourage the use of tasers for self defense. There's really not much use for guns when a pretty reliable alternative to taking someone down non lethally (I know they're not 100% reliable and can kill someone with a heart condition, but it's still much better than some getting shot).

Edited February 27, 2018 by Jotari

[Tetragrammaton]

On 2/26/2018 at 1:32 PM, Flee Fleet! said:

So basically

 

you're like, mocking the US.

 

Which was pretty clear from your post before, dunno why people got confused, lol. 

But, anyways, regarding the gun stuff: I'm all for gun control/ I don't see why we shouldn't have gun control as there doesn't seem to be any big disadvantage from it (well, it would be a disadvantage for gun nuts, I guess?)

And regarding teachers being armed: no. Just have more security or something.

Am I mocking US? No, you're wrong, I am not.

If none of you guys have ever realize a gun culture exists in US, and bring it into the full equation, you'll never find the solution.

I really love those great movies, games, and many things from the US. More of them will not be created in the future once they completely solve this problem, and that is my lost.

[Johann]

3 hours ago, hanhnn said:

I really love those great movies, games, and many things from the US. More of them will not be created in the future once they completely solve this problem, and that is my lost.

Uh, society doesn't use swords anymore yet people seem to have no problem making films and other media that use them one way or another. If you value the ability to make pulp action films over random innocent people dying, then you should probably get the fuck outta here.

[blah the Prussian]

7 hours ago, hanhnn said:

Am I mocking US? No, you're wrong, I am not.

If none of you guys have ever realize a gun culture exists in US, and bring it into the full equation, you'll never find the solution.

I really love those great movies, games, and many things from the US. More of them will not be created in the future once they completely solve this problem, and that is my lost.

Probably not worth responding, but the UK bans guns and still makes Bond movies. Japan bans guns and has a bunch of violent anime and other media. 

[Flee Fleet!]

9 hours ago, Johann said:

Mostly it's just gun control and creating better communities for people who are at risk. Once a person (student or otherwise) is on site with a weapon, we've pretty much already lost the day. Reducing the amount of damage they can do (ie: taking away absurdly powerful weaponry) is a high priority, only topped by preventing them from carrying it out in the first place. Gun control is a deterrent-- people are less likely to engage in activities that are harder to carry out.

Consider that, aside from 9/11, every terror attack we've had in the US has been carried out by US citizens who have become radicalized one way or another. This leads us to look at why people become radicalized, which tend to be for the same reasons; a vengeful sense of feeling shunned by society, being impressionable or otherwise swayed by a hateful message (ie: propaganda), and a conviction that violent action will advance their agenda. We can manage this is by providing better emotional/social support for people and combating the message (or the means to deliver the message), as well as tracking people who are engaging in it.

I don't have time to go into greater detail but I can go on about this later if you'd like.

No need to go into greater detail, you provided a sufficient answer. As of right now, highest priority is to provide gun control to make accessing guns harder, thus making it more difficult for anyone to commit any terror attack/shooting, right? Then we have to have to prevent people getting radicalized.

 

7 hours ago, hanhnn said:

Am I mocking US? No, you're wrong, I am not.

If none of you guys have ever realize a gun culture exists in US, and bring it into the full equation, you'll never find the solution.

I really love those great movies, games, and many things from the US. More of them will not be created in the future once they completely solve this problem, and that is my lost.

Your post very much seemed to imply you were mocking it, or maybe it was just the wording. Sorry for my misunderstanding.

 

...Should be noted however that having gun control/ban on guns does not mean there's a ban on violent movies, games e.t.c. , so such things will continue to be made.

[Johann]

1 hour ago, Flee Fleet! said:

No need to go into greater detail, you provided a sufficient answer. As of right now, highest priority is to provide gun control to make accessing guns harder, thus making it more difficult for anyone to commit any terror attack/shooting, right? Then we have to have to prevent people getting radicalized.

Yes, both of those things should be our highest priorities to prevent major incidents. There's no way to protect people from everything, of course, but these measures greatly reduce our risk and are far far less costly and difficult to implement as things like extra security features or guards.

Radicalization generally begins with sentiments of disenfranchisement and disdain for groups or the government. ISIS's recruiting strategy, for instance, involves reaching out to outcasts and feeding them damning information (which may be true/false/misleading) about the US, in an attempt to fuel their hatred. They apply this strategy worldwide, mostly on the internet, though not just with hatred towards the US, but pretty much all of the "western" world. Their goal is to provoke a violent response from the US and friends, which in turn creates more people pissed off with the US. Giving into that strategy by using military action to solve our foreign disputes helps them recruit, and then we have a vicious cycle of violence through more terrorism and military action, not to mention spurring misconceived notions about foreigners, Muslims, etc.

Edited February 28, 2018 by Johann