Surprise surprise. .another shooting

[Solitary]

Good point, that is not usually pointed out.

[Baruch]

My wife had something better than a gun ... she had a lawyer ;-)  Lawyers are like neutron bombs, they destroy all wealth without completing the job of killing you.

[Johan]

Killing people with a gun and killing by a drunk driver.  Yeah, that is a great parallel.  Yes, that was sarcasm. 

Yes, it is a great parallel. And no, that was not sarcasm. Excluding suicides, just as many die from drunks on the road every year as die from bullets. So I ask you, is a life a life or is it not? Do those lost to drunks not matter as much? And if not, then why no outcry for them? Why no round the clock CNN coverage of who knew the drunk and what the drunks medical records revealed and what the drunk's former coworkers had to say? Why none of that for the victims of the drunk?

Don't bother to answer, its a redundant question. The answer is because we are hypocrites every one of us. We are hypocrites and we are easily manipulated by a profit driven news media that could give a fuck less about how newsworthy anything is so long as it grabs headlines and secures market share.

So another whacko freaked out and killed a bunch of people? Well god dammit something must be done!!!!! Oh, but a drunk also killed a bunch of people? Well... I drive a car... and I don't really want to give that up... and I have drink now and then so.... I really don't want to give that up either.... so... let's just keep that on the down low shall we.... Yeah lets not talk too much about the hard cold facts, lets just steer the conversation back to the fact that guns have no real purpose and no one who isn't absolutely insane would ever own one. Hypocrites every one of us.

[TomFoolery]

Yes, it is a great parallel. And no, that was not sarcasm. Excluding suicides, just as many die from drunks on the road every year as die from bullets.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most people who drive drunk don't do it with the conscious intention of slaughtering as many people as they can.

[Johan]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most people who drive drunk don't do it with the conscious intention of slaughtering as many people as they can.

Ok so intent is the separating factor then. The drunks don't intend to hurt anyone therefore the deaths they cause don't matter as much and/or aren't as newsworthy.

Sidebar: I know my statements on the subject make it sound as though I have an answer that I'm hoping to lead everyone else to. But that's not the case. I don't have an answer. I do have some strong beliefs when it comes to the media and their proclivities toward manipulation of general public for market share and profit. But the reality is I'm struggling to understand the true facts of all this just as much as anyone else.

So intent then. Gunman have it and drunks don't. Its certainly food for thought. But I find myself being drawn back to the same question. Is a life a life or is it not? Does it matter to Abraham Lincoln that he was the victim of an assassin instead of say, an inept engineer who unknowingly allowed a flaw into the design of Ford's theater which might have caused the roof to collapse and kill those inside?

Dead is still dead isn't it? Are all human lives equally precious or are they not? Looking at the world we live in today and the news coverage we get, it would seem very apparent that all human lives are not equally precious. Far from it in fact. And that's the problem I think I have with all of this.

Tragic? Yes. Unacceptable? Absolutely. But not one iota more so than any other senseless death that we as a society could give a fuck less about.

Maybe its because I always tend to be a strong advocate of solving the actual problem instead of just putting a bandaid on the effect of the problem, I dunno. But for my money the core problem here is the relatively recent phenomena of more and more suicidal individuals opting to take innocent lives in the course of their own suicides than it is any kind of gun issue. And I assume its because guns are such a hot topic and headline grabber that no one really seems to be least bit concerned about that core issue. Everyone wants to focus on the guns instead of the core problem.

I am an individual who was at one point completely real fucking deal suicidal. And the last thing in my mind was hurting anyone else. I have since learned that a common question on the subject among mental healthcare providers is whether or not you had a plan. 'Oh so you were suicidal? Well we'll see about that. Did you have a plan?' Yes I most definitely had a plan. And most of the deciding factors in that plan revolved around insuring that the loved ones in my life would not see me nor find me because I did not want to inflict that pain on them. So it just baffles me why so many who are suicidal seem to want to hurt others in the course of their suicides these days.

History has already established that when it comes to homicide taking away the guns does not solve the core problem. Reduce it? Sure. But solve it? Nope.  Not even close. So when we float around our little platitudes and our catch phrases like 'if only everyone else had guns' and the like, and it just screams to me that you're a individual who has absolutely no interest in identifying and solving the actual problem. Why do that when a bandaid is so much easier? In fact why do that when spouting platitudes and catch phrases on the internet (but otherwise doing absolutely fucking nothing) is so much easier? Hypocrites every one of us. But we're only human after all. So I suppose I should expect nothing more and nothing less. And I don't.

[aitm]

Oh, but a drunk also killed a bunch of people? Well... I drive a car... and I don't really want to give that up..

I am with you. For nearly 30 years I have told people that we operate on the "law of convenience", it does not matter how many die in car or vehicle accidents or pool drowning or hell electrocution, we are not about to give up our conveniences just because a dozen or thousand die  because of it. Hell, years ago stores were allowed to have dented can specials, then one person or two died and voila! No more dented can specials even though 99.9999 percent are safe, we can't risk the chance of saving a couple dozen lives from starvation if maybe one could get sick. Yeah, we are a special kind of animal..33,000 die in auto accidents and we shrug…132 die in a plane crash and …shrug…..a random whacko job kills 5 and katie bar the door...

[Johan]

I am with you. For nearly 30 years I have told people that we operate on the "law of convenience", it does not matter how many die in car or vehicle accidents or pool drowning or hell electrocution, we are not about to give up our conveniences just because a dozen or thousand die  because of it. Hell, years ago stores were allowed to have dented can specials, then one person or two died and voila! No more dented can specials even though 99.9999 percent are safe, we can't risk the chance of saving a couple dozen lives from starvation if maybe one could get sick. Yeah, we are a special kind of animal..33,000 die in auto accidents and we shrug…132 die in a plane crash and …shrug…..a random whacko job kills 5 and katie bar the door...

Yes. This. This is what I struggle with when it comes to these sorts of things.

We are, at our core, loving and compassionate individuals on the whole. The vast and overwhelming majority of us are fundamentally very very good people. Take a $100,000 Lamborghini and pull up to any Starbucks in this country, walk in and toss the keys and a cell phone to the very first stranger you meet saying my wife in pregnant and giving birth and I have to go to the hospital so could you please park and keep an eye on my car and I'll call you on this phone later to get it back... And chances are your car will be absolutely fine and you will get it back no problem and the individual in question will be happy to have helped.

But I think we are also at our core very shallow and stupid people. Good intentions? Absolutely, nothing but. But we are also a people who can effortlessly rationalize away just about anything if it means saving ourselves from the least bit of inconvenience. As I often say, the problem with our species is that we're animals. At our core? Savages really. And none of our many intellectual advances or social developments have gotten us more than a few scant millimeters away from that. If the electric power went off for good, or even seemingly for good, it would take us micro seconds to start killing one another. Most of us wouldn't make it past the first night.

[hrdlr110]

Who is saying that? Besides you, I mean.

This is a tragic event no doubt and I don't want to belittle that. This trend of suicidal people deciding to massacre others before taking their own lives is truly baffling and disturbing.

But once again at the risk of being shunned or flamed or whatever, I have to ask why this tragic news story warrants its own thread here on an athiest forum while these other stories do not. Are the lives of these other people not just as important? Where is the outcry from the athiest community for them? These were all in the news in the last 48 hours and took about 30 seconds to find via google search. Why no threads here for any of them? Not one? I guess we don't give a fuck about people who are killed by mixing booze and cars.

http://www.katc.com/story/29611152/duson-man-charged-in-fatal-car-wreck-in-myrtle-beach
http://www.dailyprogress.com/alcohol-possible-factor-in-fatal-crash-on-u-s-tuesday/article_47d430f6-305f-11e5-8242-2bb0b2b12b12.html
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/4236888-181/st-helena-police-alcohol-main
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-23/double-fatal-crash-in-nakara-darwin/6641448
http://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/westbrook-man-dies-fatal-crash-gore-highway/2715722/
http://wncn.com/2015/07/23/1-million-bond-set-for-unc-student-charged-in-triple-fatal-crash/

Partly it is a lacking of understanding the mindset of someone that decides to kill. This lack of understanding leads to curiosity, of wondering which of those amongst us today is capable of losing the plot. There are guesses. There is debatable reasoning. But in the end, if we knew, we'd stop them.
Not many drivers set out on an evening of drinking with plans to kill. I'm no friend of drivers that will do this, and they get far to little jail time for their killing. But for the most part, except knowing it COULD happen, it was never their intent. But yeah, fuck them too!

TomFoolery makes an excellent point about identifying the initial shooter in a crowd of shooters that draw in response to gunfire. Good luck with that! That sounds nightmarish!

[Shiranu]

tl;dr -- victims of drunk drivers are dead too without outrage (a blatant lie if I ever heard one), therefor you should never take action against guns because if you don't take action to fix one problem you should never take actions to fix any other problem.

Maybe its because I always tend to be a strong advocate of solving the actual problem instead of just putting a bandaid on the effect of the problem...

Oh, I must have misread your post then. Here I was thinking you were saying we shouldn't use outrage over the disgusting gun culture we have in the United States to try and make changes for the better by taking actions that other civilized countries have... and have seen their gun violence, intentional or otherwise, drastically reduced.

"Yeah, it sure sucks about Rosa Parks... but we cant use this situation to address social equality, because people are driving drunk and you aren't upset about that! You are just a hypocrite!"

[Hydra009]

You guys upset about Rosa Parks are hypocrites.  Lots of people die from malaria, dirty drinking water, and inadequate access to basic medical care in third world countries.  Obviously, we can't address civil rights until every person on the planet has their basic medical needs taken care of first.  Also, if you're outraged about one, it indicates that you're not outraged about the other somehow.

[GSOgymrat]

There have been 204 mass shootings â€" and 204 days â€" in 2015 so far

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/24/there-have-been-204-mass-shootings-and-204-days-in-2015-so-far/?tid=sm_tw

"Those who live in America, or visit it, might do best to regard [mass shootings] the way one regards air pollution in China: an endemic local health hazard which, for deep-rooted cultural, social, economic and political reasons, the country is incapable of addressing," The Economist wrote in response to the Charleston massacre. "This may, however, be a bit unfair. China seems to be making progress on pollution."

[Johan]

tl;dr -- victims of drunk drivers are dead too without outrage (a blatant lie if I ever heard one), therefor you should never take action against guns because if you don't take action to fix one problem you should never take actions to fix any other problem.

Oh, I must have misread your post then. Here I was thinking you were saying we shouldn't use outrage over the disgusting gun culture we have in the United States to try and make changes for the better by taking actions that other civilized countries have... and have seen their gun violence, intentional or otherwise, drastically reduced.

Right, do absolutely nothing. That's EXACTLY what I said. I bet  you got little gold starts and your little forehead every day in Mrs Rottencroch's reading class.


But you did get one thing correct although I don't think you intended to. You're right that other countries have taken actions and those actions have drastically reduced their gun violence. Gun violence. Hmmm.... why doesn't that say simply violence? Why is the word gun needed to qualify it? Oh right, because the actions those other countries didn't really stop people from killing one another in any great numbers. It just stopped them from using guns to do it.

And that's one of the things I struggle with when it comes to this problem. I want this problem fixed. I want the killing to stop. So the natural knee jerk is lets look at the guns and gun culture. Makes a lot of sense. Until you look at the numbers and you find that in places where the guns were taken away, the killing didn't stop. When your roof is leaking,  you go and  you fix the roof. You don't ignore the roof problem and try to get everyone to outlaw rain.

Guns are far too easy to get here. And we should fix that. I've said that many times and I'll keep saying it. And because they're easy to get, they're almost always the tool of choice when someone makes the decision to carry out one of these acts. But fixing the gun accessibility issue does NOTHING to address the actual problem. So once again I will ask the same question I always ask. Which problem do you want to fix? Do you want people to stop killing others in the course of taking their own lives or is it good enough in your book if we just make it so they can't use guns to do it? The internet is a big place. Go look around and you will quickly find there is no shortage of people committing mass murder without guns throughout history. If you think taking away the guns is what even begins to solve this problem, you're a fool.

[SGOS]

Partly it is a lacking of understanding the mindset of someone that decides to kill. This lack of understanding leads to curiosity, of wondering which of those amongst us today is capable of losing the plot. There are guesses. There is debatable reasoning. But in the end, if we knew, we'd stop them.

I had the same reaction when reading about the investigation, yesterday.  The perp had been identified, and was in custody, albeit in the morgue.  It seems like the case could be considered closed, but the concentration of the police remained focused, although now on the cause of his actions, with the police chief making a public statement that they "owed finding the cause to the relatives of the victims."

I'm as curious about the cause as anyone else, but at the same time, I don't know that it does much to help.  It seems like just quenching the thirst of the public's morbid curiosity.  People want an explanation for murder.  Why?  Even if we do determine that he was bullied, depressed, crazy, so what?  We understand the consequences of bullying, depression, and insanity, and we even have ways to help deal with them.

Even if we achieved a greater understanding of high risk persons, we still hear the police say, "We can't arrest him until he commits a crime", and if you require a psych evaluation before selling someone a gun, the NRA cries foul.  I'm not adverse to further investigation if it satisfies people's curiosity, but I'm doubtful that understanding does much to solve the problem.  Steps would have to be taken to do prevent such actions by murderers, and it involves the world of politics, which is one of mankind's most irrational institutions.

[Baruch]

Ongoing investigation into causes?  Is this only because the perp was White, and we need to give him an excuse for what he did, like we do with every cop on citizen killing?  Do we do complete investigations when the perp is Black ... or do we just dismiss it as ... bad seed?  And DAs like to do fake investigations and fake grand juries.  Color me skeptical ... that is my race ;-)  What I have seen in the last few years is ... if the perp is Black, we find every possible reason why he/she was an asshole who deserved what they got.  You can't un-racist America.

[Mike Cl]

You guys upset about Rosa Parks are hypocrites.  Lots of people die from malaria, dirty drinking water, and inadequate access to basic medical care in third world countries.  Obviously, we can't address civil rights until every person on the planet has their basic medical needs taken care of first.  Also, if you're outraged about one, it indicates that you're not outraged about the other somehow.

I'm with you on this, Hydra.  To a point.  I am outraged that the people's basic medical needs are not being addressed--nor are their basic civil rights, either.  Yes, I'm outraged that Coca Cola is stealing water from people around the world.  And that Big Oil is stealing the environment from other countries.  And several other things outrage me, as well.  This is clearly a world in which corporations rule.  which is why gun control simply is just another issue to be outraged about (including drunk drives).  One does not preclude the others.  But the issue is, for this thread, gun control, so I'll limit my outrage to just that for this thread.  Gun control is such an easy fix--except it's not because the corporations are in control.