Dayton, Ohio Mass Shooting

[GDB]

Originally Posted by DracoS

Mass shootings are tragic, but America seems to get way more than comparable states like Canada, the UK and South Korea. How many more mass shootings will it be before something is actually done about the very clear and serous problem you got?

How many more until rich people's families or prominent GOP politicians' families are involved?

[SeijiSensei]

The Republican congressman who represents Dayton came out yesterday for an assault weapons ban, a limit on magazines, and a "red flag" law. Until then, he had an A rating from the NRA.

His daughter and a friend were across the street from where the shooting took place.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/new...ng/1936035001/

BTW, a Federal district judge struck down California's law that limits magazines to ten rounds. I skimmed the decision, as did a journalist friend who covers the Supreme Court. Neither of us could find any limit that he would think constitutional. The decision will be appealed.

https://casetext.com/case/duncan-v-becerra-4

[Guardian Enzo]

The “Red Flag” law is the most milquetoast, ineffectual gun control measure imaginable. The fact that Moscow Mitch won’t even allow that to be voted on is a measure of how broken the Senate is.

[ramlaen]

And yet a red flag law would be more effective than say, arbitrary magazine capacity limits.

[Renegade334]

Originally Posted by ramlaen

And yet a red flag law would be more effective than say, arbitrary magazine capacity limits.

...?
Ramlaen from AW and Sturgeon's House? Didn't know you were here, too. Well, well, ain't this a small world!

[ramlaen]

Originally Posted by Renegade334

...?
Ramlaen from AW and Sturgeon's House? Didn't know you were here, too. Well, well, ain't this a small world!

shhh my friend

Originally Posted by ramlaen

And yet a red flag law would be more effective than say, arbitrary magazine capacity limits.

To highlight this.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...ing/index.html

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by DracoS

Mass shootings are tragic, but America seems to get way more than comparable states like Canada, the UK and South Korea. How many more mass shootings will it be before something is actually done about the very clear and serous problem you got?

The answer is simple, it isn't a problem to many Americans.

The very idea that mass shootings is suppose to be rare, is something most living Americans had never experienced in their lifetime. So there is no incentive to change it because the deaths are accepted.

Much like the average Chinese is used to the idea of having people randomly disappearing. You can get used to anything if it is the only thing you ever known.

On that matter, everyone know that videogames is not the reason why the shootings happen. But society accepts it because the alternative, of actually stopping it, is unacceptable.

It's like how the average Chinese know "there is only one China" is a lie, but they say it anyway. The lie is more convenient that the truth. It is acceptable to have mass shootings because American society don't believe in anything else. Attacking videogames is now standard practice. A society willingly lie to itself.

[Key Board]

If the government intends to portray videogames as state enemy in this political climate that what do you think will happen eventually?

Is someone going to shoot up E3 because a game devs criticized trump on Twitter?
Is someone going to shoot up Square Enix because Cloud is effeminate "now"
Is someone going to shoot up Evo because sonicfox said he is gay too many times?
Is someone going to shoot up Tekken because Harada has "durr hurr hurr gone full SJW"

[Magin]

I saw a statistic on another thread about these shootings, among other statistics, and the tl;dr is that although they are horrific... in the long run, they're pure media clickbait. Also, hearing about these shootings and being nihilistic... is a bad combination. AKA everyone is going to die sooner or later, and even if you live a long life, any accomplishments won't matter in the end, so why not end things quicker.

Also, on a super technically-correct level... the 2A in America, outside of the militia part (that's the part that everyone ignores anyways), is being fully used for the reason it was created. As a brief history refresher, the 2A was put in because during the Revolution, the British were both taking over homes and seizing weapons (which really is how you crush a rebellion... assuming you're the victor. For a comparison to Japanese history, Toyotomi Hideoyoshi seized all swords from peasants so they couldn't rebel. Of course, he was successful. The British... not so much). So, at least part of the 2A is to say that you can drive off foreign invaders. And Trump is driving the rhetoric that America is being invaded by foreigners. Plus add in Fox News propaganda- which is currently working exactly as it was intended.

For my own part, there's 323 million people in America. As George Carlin once put it, think of how dumb the average American is, then realize that 50% of the population is even stupider. So as horrible as this is to say... if stupid people get taken out, then the ends justify the means. The world could use a lot less stupidity. Now, as for what classifies for being stupid... that's another thread.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Key Board

If the government intends to portray videogames as state enemy in this political climate that what do you think will happen eventually?

Is someone going to shoot up E3 because a game devs criticized trump on Twitter?
Is someone going to shoot up Square Enix because Cloud is effeminate "now"
Is someone going to shoot up Evo because sonicfox said he is gay too many times?
Is someone going to shoot up Tekken because Harada has "durr hurr hurr gone full SJW"

Can you please NOT doing this. With the KyoAni fire, AND someone getting arrested for threatening Square Enix with doing the same (ppl theorized he lost $$$ on gacha), the least thing we need is someone fearmongering and bringing up petty twitter tumblr vs 4chan vs the altright fights.

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by Magin

AKA everyone is going to die sooner or later, and even if you live a long life, any accomplishments won't matter in the end, so why not end things quicker.

If that's the case then why don't you end your life right now? Oh you don't want to die? Thought so.

(Also in case someone thinks I'm seriously telling someone to die - I'm not.)

Originally Posted by Magin

For my own part, there's 323 million people in America. As George Carlin once put it, think of how dumb the average American is, then realize that 50% of the population is even stupider. So as horrible as this is to say... if stupid people get taken out, then the ends justify the means. The world could use a lot less stupidity. Now, as for what classifies for being stupid... that's another thread.

So what you're saying is that it's fine to shoot 'stupid' people.

Aside from legal issues (you do realize that shooting someone is a crime?) and that those you consider stupid <enter definition> too have an inherent right to live and the slight hurdle of deciding how to classify 'stupid' (mental issues? political opinion? skin color? religion? cheating on you? owning a bigger hosue? earning a higher salary? only having a $100 note to pay for chewing gum?) there's also the minor problem that a) everyone is 'stupid' to someone else and b) shooting someone automatically makes you 'stupid' to someone else, thus we'd be shooting each other until nobody is left.

I'm sure it all sounds perfectly reasonable to you until the moment someone close to you gets shot.

It still surprises me that people think that the solution to the already staggeringly high number of gun violence crimes is to shoot even more people.

[aldw]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

The answer is simple, it isn't a problem to many Americans.

The very idea that mass shootings is suppose to be rare, is something most living Americans had never experienced in their lifetime. So there is no incentive to change it because the deaths are accepted.

Much like the average Chinese is used to the idea of having people randomly disappearing. You can get used to anything if it is the only thing you ever known.

On that matter, everyone know that videogames is not the reason why the shootings happen. But society accepts it because the alternative, of actually stopping it, is unacceptable.

It's like how the average Chinese know "there is only one China" is a lie, but they say it anyway. The lie is more convenient that the truth. It is acceptable to have mass shootings because American society don't believe in anything else. Attacking videogames is now standard practice. A society willingly lie to itself.

And ideological reductionism of this type is no less harmful than outright propaganda for pushing one-dimensional POVs when the underlying issues have complex multifactorial causalities.

[Magin]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

If that's the case then why don't you end your life right now? Oh you don't want to die? Thought so.

(Also in case someone thinks I'm seriously telling someone to die - I'm not.)



So what you're saying is that it's fine to shoot 'stupid' people.

Aside from legal issues (you do realize that shooting someone is a crime?) and that those you consider stupid <enter definition> too have an inherent right to live and the slight hurdle of deciding how to classify 'stupid' (mental issues? political opinion? skin color? religion? cheating on you? owning a bigger hosue? earning a higher salary? only having a $100 note to pay for chewing gum?) there's also the minor problem that a) everyone is 'stupid' to someone else and b) shooting someone automatically makes you 'stupid' to someone else, thus we'd be shooting each other until nobody is left.

I'm sure it all sounds perfectly reasonable to you until the moment someone close to you gets shot.

It still surprises me that people think that the solution to the already staggeringly high number of gun violence crimes is to shoot even more people.

Much of those questions I've asked- it's a moral/philosophical question that has no answer I can currently give. Besides, after hearing a certain piece of news about a criminal who could've brought down the entire world (okay, more specifically, some of the most powerful people in the world) is now dead by very suspicious means... well, maybe I've been spending too much time of Reddit, but I'm wondering more often it would be in best interests for humanity to just be reset. That way, possibly have a do-over at getting a fair world. Cause the current world, between climate change, mass violence and all the bad things in the world... my hope for the human race is slowly draining away.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by aldw

And ideological reductionism of this type is no less harmful than outright propaganda for pushing one-dimensional POVs when the underlying issues have complex multifactorial causalities.

There is really only two possible conclusions from information available; either all the violence are caused by easy access of firearms, or American citizens are supernaturally inclined towards performing mass shootings.

It has to be one or the other, because videogames are certainly available everywhere. The only thing that makes the rest of the world different is the lack of guns and a lack of Americans.

You can pick one of the two. Which one do you like more?

[SeijiSensei]

I've been struck by the effort of Trump supporters to point to the Dayton shooter's supposed left-wing tendencies to deflect from the obviously racist motivations of the El Paso shooter. Thing is, not all mass shootings have political motivations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/10/u...ny-dayton.html

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

There is really only two possible conclusions from information available; either all the violence are caused by easy access of firearms, or American citizens are supernaturally inclined towards performing mass shootings.

Guns are the biggest factor, but certainly not the only one. You are simplifying too hard here. The state of mental health treatment in the US is still a joke and police response times in certain areas is atrocious, just to name some examples. As long as there isn't a solution that includes these things as well, the issue will not go away, even if you introduce stricter gun laws.

We should still fight for more gun control but it should be considered one step among many.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Guns are the biggest factor, but certainly not the only one. You are simplifying too hard here. The state of mental health treatment in the US is still a joke and police response times in certain areas is atrocious, just to name some examples.

I'm not saying they aren't problems worth solving for their own sakes, but the response time in Dayton was 30 seconds, and mental illness isn't a predictor of mass shooting.

[Eisdrache]

Dayton isn't the only place where people commit crime nor are mass shootings the only case of gun violence.

[SeijiSensei]

More on misogyny as motivation for Dayton shooter

https://abcnews.go.com/US/alleged-da...ry?id=64826324

The Oslo man who attacked the mosque allegedly killed his sister beforehand.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...er/1981006001/

[Toukairin]

I found something that tells us about double standards with the gun lobbies. The NRA once backed restricting gun laws at the time when the Black Panthers were the ones exploiting every single opening given to them by the Second Amendment.

The NRA Supported Gun Control When the Black Panthers Had the Weapons

Two paragraphs in particular drew my attention, so I think I should share those here.

In contrast to the NRA’s rigid opposition to gun control in today’s America, the organization fought alongside the government for stricter gun regulations in the 1960s. This was part of an effort to keep guns out of the hands of African-Americans as racial tensions in the nation grew. The NRA felt especially threatened by the Black Panthers, whose well-photographed carrying of weapons in public spaces was entirely legal in the state of California, where they were based.

...

Ironically, it was the gun control laws that were put into effect against African-Americans and the Black Panthers that led "rural white conservatives" across the country to fear any restriction of their own guns, Winkler says. In less than a decade, the NRA would go from backing gun control regulations to inhibit groups they felt threatened by to refusing to support any gun control legislation at all.

The odd thing is that it reminds me of that cartoon bit in "Bowling for Columbine" when they showed white people keeping their guns because they were afraid of everybody basically.