The one common thread to all these mass murders.

[gorfle]

In the end, someone with a gun put a stop to it. Even when the perp kills themselves, usually it is only after someone shows up with a gun and the perp realizes the gig is up.

[tabatha]

1. I think there should not even be mass murders.

A common thread seems to be that people feel slighted.

[niyad]

2. do you think they will ever really tell us how many of the dead and wounded at Ft. Hood were the

result of "friendly fire"?

[imdjh]

4. Jesus fucking Christ. Must everything have a conspiracy angle?

edit: And please tell me that you aren't trying to figure out some way that this piece of shit's actions are someone else's fault.

[ThatPoetGuy]

16. You didn't understand the remark. Read it again.

It wasn't about conspiracy theories. It was about understanding the effect of guns at mass murders.

[niyad]

44. perhaps you did not hear yesterday that a number of talking heads, including that col

jack (can't remember last name) said that it was more than likely that a number of the dead and wounded were the result of friendly fire.

so don't snarl at me about conspiracy theories. I was simply asking for information based on what I heard-- on rachel's show, as a matter of fact, so it wasn't any of the reichwing nutjob sites.

[gorfle]

28. Did you know?

Did you know that CCW permit holders are less likely to cause collateral damage during a shooting than police officers?

[paulsby]

53. correct

fwiw, i once interviewed a ccw'er who was watching a cop being assassinated (the cop was lying on the ground and the guy was plugging rounds into the cops head) because she was unsure of her "backstop". there was an apartment building about 1/4 mile down the road.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. Yes, they will.

Why wouldn't they? They are still gathering evidence, and autopsies still need to go through, the families need to be informed, etc.

They will tell the public LAST, but they will tell us if any were. And it will be relatively easy to tell, because of the unique caliber he used. I think we'll find no one shooting back had a 5.7mm.

[sharesunited]

3. Sounds like a "guns as solution to guns" meme. Access to guns and ammo IS the problem.

[imdjh]

6. self delete

[RC]

10. sharesunited's remark was an intelligent remark.

No guns, nobody dead by guns. The Ft. Hood incident would not have happened.

[virginia mountainman]

11. How do you "un-invent" something??

Fantasy, and other improbabilities has no part in a serious conversation.

[ThatPoetGuy]

17. Are you kidding?

You can't have a serious conversation without them. Any serious discussion needs to explore an understanding of how things would be if x had not happened, and so on. Have you ever had a serious discussion?

[virginia mountainman]

23. A serious discussion should not include..

Impossibilities..

Firearms are here to stay. Until at least 1,000 years after the 1,000 watt plasma rifles are in common use.

[ThatPoetGuy]

25. Yes, a serious discussion should include the impossible.

Einstein formulated theories by asking about the impossible. Fractal mathematics is a field built on asking questions about the square roots of negative numbers -- "imaginary numbers," as they're called. Political philosophy needs to discuss impossible utopias. In order to understand any issue, it's often important to spend time thinking about things that can't happen.

[Merchant Marine]

40. Alas, public policy

must center around the possible. Unless you like digging holes and throwing money into them.

[virginia mountainman]

41. Their is a muffler shop down the road from my house..

He most likely has all the materials on hand to build submachine guns....

At my house, and possibly at yours too, would have all the materials on hand, to build ammunition for that sub machine gun, including the ability to make, powder and primers for that ammo.

Now tell me, again, how you will un-invent something???

[Katya Mullethov]

59. If there were no guns , there would be no Ft Hood

Uninventing Islam seems more realistic .

[PavePusher]

13. If someone with a gun and GOOD intentions had not come along...

when do you think these goblins would have stopped?

So the whole "guns as a solution to guns" thing might actually have some truth in it, yathink?

[Howzit]

43. How can you write "no guns" and "Ft. Hood" in one sentence?

Are you suggesting we disarm the military and police, or just civilians?

If Hasan had deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan he would have been furnished with guns and ammo and could just as easily have gone off over there. Except, all soldiers "over there" are armed, not just the nuts, so Hasan could do more damage at the base.

What we have here is a classic conflict of interest: Hasan is a member of the US military and is forced to be part of engaging a people he feels the stronger allegiance to.

Apparently Hasan tried to quit the military but they would not let him go - that was a mistake too.

[Euromutt]

45. It may surprise you, but people killed other people before guns were invented

Asses' jawbones, spears, knives, swords (especially swords), maces, flails, hand bows, crossbows, the list is a long one. No guns may mean nobody dead by guns, but it does not mean nobody dead.

To compare, the US homicide rate in 2005-2006 was around 5.6/100,000; the homicide rate in London from 1300-1350 varied between 36 and 52/100,000. Around 1450, Amsterdam had a homicide rate of around 47/100,000. Interestingly, and perhaps counter-intuitively, historical research indicates that the countryside was more lethal than the major cities; in the 1340s, Oxford had a homicide rate of around 110/100,000!

So guns aren't the sole cause of lethal violence. And one thing they do do is act as an equalizer; they go a long way to nullifying the advantage held by those who are physically stronger and have gone to the effort to become more practiced at violence. Basically, guns allow non-bullies to take on non-bullies.

[Euromutt]

46. Ah, frak! Typo!

My last sentence should read: "Basically, guns allow non-bullies to take on bullies."

[gorfle]

29. But you can't stop the access.

Since there has always been access to guns and ammo since they were invented, and every other sort of weapon before that, it is likely that this will continue to be the case.

I accept that.

Do you accept that guns will continue to be the solution?

[AtheistCrusader]

55. I'm sure the outcome would have been better if he'd walked in with a backpack full of explosives.

Because as we all know, Timothy McVeigh killed over 100 people with a deadly cop-killer assault weapon.


In a rather moribund way, I'm GLAD he chose a firearm. Depending on your perspective, he ONLY killed 13 people.

[Remmah2]

64. Self defense.

"Self defense is an act of nature, vengeance is an act of man." (Roycroft)

[msongs]

5. false title - TWO common threads = use of guns nt

[hlthe2b]

7. No matter how hard they try....

to convince us--- killing or seriously wounding 40 plus people with a knife is just not going to happen.... Guns don't kill people----Right....:eyes:

[imdjh]

9. poison

[eqfan592]

33. It can and has happened actually.

usually it's not over such a short timespan, though there have been incidents of people going nuts with a sword and running through a mall, slashing people (I believe this occurred in Japan within the last few years). You would likely see a rise in these if guns were not available, and those wounds also tend to be more gruesome.


As for "guns don't kill people" you're just showing yourself to be a damned fool by attributing the crime to an inanimate object used by someone.

[virginia mountainman]

60. Ahh, BULLSHIT... Mass Murders with edged weapons are common in some parts of the world..

The government accused the LRA of "hacking to death" 45 people in a church in the Congolese town of Doruma. First reports suggest that 400 people were killed in several attacks on the Christmas Day in the immediate area, with around 200 slain in Doruma. The grisly report of mass murder by machete has a propaganda-information warfare element, but in the past the LRA has used machetes ("pangas" is the local word) and other edged weapons to kill en masse. One reason is that it saves ammunition.

December 25, 2008: Congolese and Ugandan government and press sources reported numerous attacks by the LRA on villages in northeastern Congo. An estimated 400 Congolese civilians have been killed.

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/uganda/articles/20090108.aspx

American photographer Lane Montgomery has compiled a book documenting six major genocides of the past 100 years, during which an estimated 70 million people were killed. She says she was inspired to create Never Again, Again, Again following an assignment in Rwanda, where in 1994 Hutu extremists murdered more than 800,000 people, mostly Tutsis. Montgomery’s book also focuses on the conflict in the Darfur region, where human rights activists say that since 2003 the government of Sudan has killed at least 300,000 people belonging to black ethnic groups. The photographer is using her book to press the relevant authorities to create what she calls an “International Genocide Force” to stop mass killings.


The bodies of victims of a massacre in Rwanda, 1994
The skeletons sprawled across the slatted wooden bench in a college in a rural Rwandan district are alabaster white and shiny…as if they’ve been polished up to form the centerpieces of a macabre art exhibit, when in fact it’s the lime strewn on their corpses after their murders to prevent them from rotting that’s bleached them an ivory white.

In another of Montgomery’s photographs from Rwanda, a crimson rosary curls across the warped, tattered and burnt pages of a bible – an image testament to the truth that tens of thousands of people who hid from the death squads in churches found no safety. Instead, they became easy targets for marauders waving machetes and torches of fire.

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2009-01/Photos-of-African-Genocide-used-to-campaign-against-Mass-Murder-PART-4-of-5.cfm?moddate=2009-01-16

[Hoopla Phil]

36. Incorrect. Please see this thread. . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x266361

[crim son]

8. Deluded much?

Guns are the problem. What is so hard to understand about that?

[PavePusher]

14. Really? Explain, please. n/t

[Ernesto]

15. ever heard of a drive-by knifing?

[SteveM]

19. Think Japan (nt)

[Hoopla Phil]

37. Then why in the world did the so called AWB ban bayonet lugs?

[Katya Mullethov]

65. Ever heard of Henry Lee Lucas ?

A local boy that made the big time . He liked to use the bumper/undercarriage of his car and would kill you without hesitation the moment the opportunity presented itself .

[SteveM]

18. My guns are not a problem. What is so hard to understand about that?

Please. If you have something constructive to add, feel free; otherwise, I'll assume that your approach is the same old prohibitionism our country can't seem to get enough of.

[GreenStormCloud]

20. The facts are against you.

Fact: In the last twenty years the number of "shall-issue" CCW states has gone from a few to 39.

Fact: Gun sales have greatly increased, especially of easily concealed handguns. There are many more handguns among the population now than twenty years ago.

Fact: The violent crime rate has gone down drastically in the last twenty years.

So we now have a situation in which millions of citizens are now carrying concealed guns and the violent crime rate has plunged. Would you care to explain those facts in view of your idea that guns are THE problem?

[ThatPoetGuy]

21. Wow. Just, wow.

Twenty years ago, there were a lot of rainbows.

Rainbows are good.

Bush was president for eight years.

There are still a lot of rainbows.

Therefore, Bush was a good president.

....

People without a grasp of even the most basic logic scare me.

[jgraz]

26. Welcome to the gungeon

Where good logic goes to die.

[Euromutt]

49. I think it commits suicide

About fifteen seconds after meeting you.

[jgraz]

50. Is that what happened to you?

And here I thought it was just natural obtuseness...

[Euromutt]

58. You must have an interesting definition of "obtuse"

It seems to be "unwilling to swallow your bullshit and dishonesty without question."

[eqfan592]

34. Nice try, slick.

Your example isn't even close to being in the same ballpark. The points brought up about firearms and crime rate are actually related with each other, with a conclusion being drawn that increased firearm ownership either has no impact on the crime rate, or a positive one (most likely a lightly positive one, with many other, non-firearm related factors playing into the crime rate, which is what I think is the reality). These facts go directly against the position that increased firearm ownership leads to an increase in crime, as this simply hasn't been the case. Crime rates, in general, seem to be pretty much unrelated to firearm ownership rates, which statistics showing slight improvements at times of higher ownership (see the FBI crime statistics in areas that allow CCW).

Your example, like I said, isn't even in the same ballpark.

[Euromutt]

48. You must be terrified to go anywhere with mirrors, then...

Lest you catch a glimpse of yourself, because that was an excellent example of how not to construct a syllogism, an almost textbook example of a non sequitur (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#nonseq). Bear in mind, also, that there is a difference between a logically valid argument (one in which the conclusion follows from the premises, even if the premises are not necessarily true), and a logically sound one (one in which the conclusion follows from the premises, and the premises are true).

This is an example of an argument that is valid, but not sound:

Premise: A president who does not cause rainbows to disappear is a good president;
Premise: During his time in office, George Bush did not cause rainbows to disappear;
Conclusion: Therefore, George Bush was a good president.

The argument is valid because the conclusion follows from the premises, even though the first premise is false because presidents' performances are not actually measured by whether or not they cause rainbows to disappear.

But more to the point, your flawed syllogism does not bear any relation to GreenStormCloud's argument. If, as crim son asserts, "gun are the problem," it seems plausible to assume that an increase in the number of private citizens who own and carry guns, and an increase in the number of guns they own, should result in an increase in firearms homicides and assaults. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation, but you can't have causation without correlation. Conversely, however, that means that if you have an increase in private firearms ownership while, at the same time, the rate of firearm crimes goes down, you don't have correlation, and therefore cannot have causation, ergo guns cannot be "the problem." They can at best be ancillary to the problem.

That is fairly elementary logic.

[rd_kent]

57. WTF?

I dont get it. The previous post made sense, yours did not.

[virginia mountainman]

12. Another very common coincident is..

That most, happen in "Gun Free" zones.

[slackmaster]

22. The other common thread among the threads about mass murders...

The OPs are just drive-by postings of news reports, and are posted without anythign resembling "Discussion of gun-related public policy issues or the use of firearms for self-defense".

Anti-gun zealots apparently feel that their position is so righteous that they don't have to abide by the forum rules.

[ThatPoetGuy]

24. Maybe the common thread to all of them...

is that juvenile, gun-toting ghouls have tried to distort the facts and exploit the human tragedy in order to advance their agenda.

The fact that these tragedies were a direct result of the pro-gun agenda only serves as evidence that gun-lovers are sick, deluded fools.

[jgraz]

27. Oh, you're gonna fit in well here

:rofl:

[gorfle]

30. Do tell...

The fact that these tragedies were a direct result of the pro-gun agenda only serves as evidence that gun-lovers are sick, deluded fools.

Please tell us how this shooting in Fort Hood is a "direct result of the pro-gun agenda".

[ThatPoetGuy]

31. Gladly.

First, let me say I'm not against guns. At all. I'm not pushing for any anti-gun legislation.

What I _am_ against is deceit, sloganeering, and propaganda. Rational discourse has no place for pithy and simplistic sound-bites ("only outlaws") or consciously created associations that raise the emotional level of discussion without improving clarity (guns=freedom).

The pro-gun agenda is among the worst. People speaking in favor of guns deliberately muddy the discourse around guns -- what they are, what they mean, the possibilities of use and misuse, possible outcomes of various forms of legislation. Some argue that guns are freedom, and any restriction or oversight placed upon gun owners means the end of democracy. "Cold, dead hands" makes it difficult, to say the least, to weigh various options against each other. Others argue that guns are tools, and by association whatever require no more oversight than the things you buy at the hardware store. But argument by analogy is questionable, and cars are tools as well -- should we stop testing drivers?

For decades, there have been countless ideas, suggestions and options that have been proposed, and each and every one of them has been opposed, for decades, by an overheated pro-gun agenda that shuts down any opposition with slogans and vague invocations of freedoms lost. So many different precautions could have been put in place, but weren't; and in their place the pro-gun agenda has consciously and deliberately crafted a mass mentality that says guns=freedom, guns=power. The discourse around guns has never been one of sobriety and responsibility, and for that the pro-gun agenda has directly resulted in tragedy, over and over.

[gorfle]

32. A lot of wind for little substance.

The meat and potatoes of your response is right here:

So many different precautions could have been put in place, but weren't

So many different restrictions could have been put in place, but weren't.

and in their place the pro-gun agenda has consciously and deliberately crafted a mass mentality that says guns=freedom, guns=power.

I have news for you - this mentality was crafted before this country existed. Guns provide the means to secure freedom. Guns do equal power.

The discourse around guns has never been one of sobriety and responsibility,

The discourse around guns has always been about preserving the intent of our founders. To wit: a decentralized military system made up of armed civilians so that a strong federal government could not oppress its own people.

[ThatPoetGuy]

35. Irony meter alert!

Your sigline:

"You cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into."

[PavePusher]

38. Reasoned discourse, indeed.

And yet, you have failed to address any point brought up, or to state any actual position.

That's a hard place to debate for or against...

[gorfle]

39. Plenty of reason here.

I have extensively read the Constitution and contemporary documents of our founders concerning the second amendment. I can competently engage in a reasoned debate on the subject, and have done so many times.

[rl6214]

47. Read that sig line again, figure out what it actually says

then come back and try again.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. Which idea?

"For decades, there have been countless ideas, suggestions and options that have been proposed, and each and every one of them has been opposed, for decades, by an overheated pro-gun agenda that shuts down any opposition with slogans and vague invocations of freedoms lost."

By all means, point to the proposed law or restriction that would have prevented this man from obtaining a firearm, and using it in a criminal act.

[friendly_iconoclast]

42. People exploit tragedy to advance their agenda? Really?

Project much?

[taurus145]

68. I use firearms

I shoot for recreation.

I shoot predators after my livestock.

I hunt. Yes, I eat what I kill. I even tan or sometimes have deer, elk, etc. hides tanned. They're dandy foot warmers in winter.

I once even shot a human predator in my home. I'd do it again to protect my wife and child as I did then. He's dead, my family and I are safe and alive. A druggie with a gun is a bad thing.

[Lefty48197]

51. It's usually the perpetrator shooting themselves isn't it?

Like Columbine, Virginia Tech... Maybe some get shot by others, but usually it seems they kill as many people as it takes to make themselves feel good, then they kill themselves.

[pipoman]

61. Actually

they shoot as many as they can until they are cornered by someone else with a gun, then they kill themselves.

[one-eyed fat man]

63. the big difference at Ft Hood

is that the lady cop did NOT do like cops at Columbine, or Virginia Tech, etc. She responded and went in after the guy. That is the "old school" sense of duty. Unlike the other examples where the first cops on the scene went to "secure" a perimeter and wait on the SWAT team.

Nothing like giving active shooters a big window of time where no one will interfere with them. Then the SWAT was so slow and methodical at clearing the building that victims died because medical assistance was delayed until after the area was declared "secure." All the cops accomplished was to take the body count and fill out the reports. That criticism of bone-headed police tactics was the beginnings of much soul-searching and policy discussions.

Since Columbine, the policy is supposed to be that upon arriving at the scene where an there is an active shooter, the first officers there are going to have to "man up" and go in after him. This is exactly what Sgt. Kimberly Munley did; she heard the radio call; she responded; she went after the shooter; she faced him down and shot it out. The first case I know of where that actually happened. It was her aggressive and decisive response that made the difference.

[Euromutt]

66. That's actually the latest tactical doctrine

Up till Virginia Tech, the doctrine was for patrol officers to secure the perimeter and wait for the SWAT team to deal with the active shooter. That was discarded because, as you rightly note, the shooter had free rein in the time it took for the SWAT team to arrive.

The doctrine that replaced it was to assemble a scratch team of the first three or four patrol officers to arrive on the scene, and have them go in. Northern Illinois proved that that was still too slow. Current consensus among those who mull these questions is that earlier doctrines overestimated the shooter. They assumed that a campus shooter would be more than a match for a single patrol officer, that he might have a partner, the he or they might have some tactical acumen, yadda yadda yadda.

The latest doctrine, which has yet to find universal acceptance, is that the shooter is almost certainly alone, and is no match for a patrol officer in a gunfight both in terms of accuracy and tactics. This is by no means a stretch of the imagination; the very fact that mass shooters invariably go on the rampage in locations where their prospective victims are all supposed to be unarmed (schools, malls, and evidently DoD facilities) indicates that they don't rate their chances very high in the face of armed opposition. Ergo, one armed opponent (a cop) has a very good chance of making a difference, even by himself. Or in this case, herself.

Still, one gutsy chick. I sincerely hope somebody gives her a medal, a big fat bonus, and pays all her medical bills, and I hope that if a situation ever arises that demands it of me, I'll have half the brass ones she did. Here's to you, Sgt. Munley.

[gorfle]

67. Excellent summary.

Ergo, one armed opponent (a cop) has a very good chance of making a difference, even by himself. Or in this case, herself.

It doesn't have to be a cop.

What it boils down to is that they are realizing that one armed person can make a difference.

Which just lends more weight to the idea of concealed carry.

All it takes is one person at the right place at the right time with the means and will to fight back.

[depakid]

52. Actually, many if not most are put to an end by the gunman themselves

Easy way out....

[PavePusher]

62. Yeah.

After they encounter resistance, most often from people equally well armed. Until then, they keep shooting until they're out of ammo or victims.

Odd, that.