"Yet Another Mass Shooting In America" Superthread

[Chris 2,161]

Of course by now you've heard about the most recent school shooting in Texas. We don't need to rehash the same info here that's available everywhere else. 

But what I am wondering is, can we have a rational discussion about this maybe? Because everywhere I look and listen today, everyone is so entrenched in their personal beliefs, their own world view, that I really don't think we can. 

"I argued with an anti-gun nut..."

"... these damn 'ammosexuals..."

Because, yeah THAT'S what we need to be doing right now. That's really fu--ing helpful.

I don't even want to talk about the pros and cons of guns frankly, because it's so damned pointless. You're not getting that toothpaste back in the tube. You're not going to get one "side" to even think of leaning towards understanding the other. For Christ's sake the blood isn't even congealed on the floor and the same back and forth begins. I'm sorry, but this is a far more multi-faceted, systemic problem than that. There's other factors no one wants to talk about:

• Our society's embrace of violence, even in entertainment.
• The absolutely disgusting and embarrassing lack of meaningful mental health care.
• The near complete breakdown of the nuclear family. 
• Social media, and "letting the wolf in the door" as I call it. 
• The political/ ideological polarization in our society.

And so on. 

I don't know, maybe I'm just thinking out loud, as equally helpful as typing "thoughts and prayers" before moving on to the next thing on the screen.

Open discussion, have at it.  

 

[Chris 2,161]

On NPR yesterday afternoon, they had a psychiatrist on who talked about the average age of these school shooters all being so close ( for the most part ) ranging from 18-21.I was struck by what a really narrow window that is. Apparently that's a time of more, volatility, I guess would be the word for it? More prone to impulsive behavior? So it's worth looking at the other similarities are and what could be causing this. 

I tried to find the interview to post, but can't. Which is a shame, it was really interesting. 

[Kevin 334]

I think part of the outrage is caused by social media. I read somewhere that violent crimes including shooting is at an all time low, but because you used to only hear about it on the news and in the paper for 1-2 days.  It seems like it is at an all time high, because everyone is sharing the information and you see it in FB, IG, Twitter, and TikTok a hundred times a day for 2 weeks. 

I tried to explain to a friend that was calling for background checks that was already a law, but the politicians need to fund it better instead of using keywords that gets people fired up. 

[MsKreed 1,178]

1·  Our society's embrace of violence, even in entertainment.

To some degree, “entertainment” has been saturated with violence for a long time. I do think special effects and CGI, etc have made it more graphic, and it’s compounded by the fact that streaming and premium paid programming is fast replacing the “old school” network media that has guidelines that restrict more graphic content. And, as Kevin pointed out, we are also seeing an overload of 24/7 news that amplifies real-life violence....giving a perception that it’s more commonplace, more prevalent, and effectively “normalized” to the point where it’s more likely to be emulated.

 

2·  The absolutely disgusting and embarrassing lack of meaningful mental health care.

As I’ve said for quite some time.....I think it would be useful to compile data on what percentage of these shooters (particularly adolescent, young adults) have been treated with prescriptions for behavioral problems, that have known side effects of increased violence and aggression.

There has been REPORT after REPORT after REPORT after REPORT after REPORT that show serotonin inhibitors and amphetamines used for depression, anxiety and ADHD have this effect – especially on young brains that are still developing. 

Advertisements for these drugs carry warnings just like cigarettes or alcohol, as required by the FDA. Yet there are some stark differences in their availability: cigarettes & alcohol are illegal for minors, while these drugs are routinely administered by “trusted professionals”....often by GPs and pediatricians with little or no requirement for intensive therapy and close monitoring. (see the converse to this issue in #4)

 

3·  The near complete breakdown of the nuclear family. 

Exacerbated by a growing movement that loudly argues that this question in itself is “offensive” and supports institutional misogyny, racism and patriarchy.

(But personally, I think this trend contributes to many of the other points mentioned, because degraded families are more susceptible to parents less likely to address the media and mental health points.

 

4·  Social media, and "letting the wolf in the door" as I call it. 

Yes, lazy (or naïve) parents that allow their children to immerse themselves in social media content that they are oblivious to is a huge problem.

When a kid is suffering from isolation, feels like a “misfit” or is otherwise at risk, those social media platforms (and some ugly influences) can serve as a substitute for the positive, constructive therapy and counseling that may be lacking (even when the risk was identified and “treated” with an Rx).

 

5·  The political/ ideological polarization in our society.

Again, I believe this is amplified by social media and 24/7 “news” and commentary that creates a perception that it’s more ubiquitous. Neither the ultra-MAGA nor radical progressives make up a significant segment of the population.....but they are vocal and talking about them gets ratings. So their voices and actions constitute well over 75% of coverage.

Edited May 28, 2022 by MsKreed

[Chris 2,161]

9 hours ago, MsKreed said:

3·  The near complete breakdown of the nuclear family. 

Exacerbated by a growing movement that loudly argues that this question in itself is “offensive” and supports institutional misogyny, racism and patriarchy.

(But personally, I think this trend contributes to many of the other points mentioned, because degraded families are more susceptible to parents less likely to address the media and mental health points.

Whats interesting, and I only just noticed it, was I meant the extended family and in my frustration "mispoke."

On another forum I frequent I said this and my statement was dismissed as being too "Rush Limbaugh". That brought everything to a screeching halt as far as my participation. Well, except for the part where I said I would be willing to come to the table and talk in good faith about things we could do to maybe try and fix the situation. The other person immediately wanted complete gun bans, or guns mandated to be stored at a gun range. Additionally they wanted liability insurance for gun owners, yearly mental health evaluations and proficiency testing with the guns and home inspections to make sure guns were secured "correctly". And then when I said those were all a non-starter for me, I'M the one talking in bad faith. 

And yet this person, who lives here in NY, didn't know that for me to have a pistol, I had to have a permit to own one first. 

 

[KarenK 383]

39 minutes ago, Chris said:

Whats interesting, and I only just noticed it, was I meant the extended family and in my frustration "mispoke."

On another forum I frequent I said this and my statement was dismissed as being too "Rush Limbaugh". That brought everything to a screeching halt as far as my participation. Well, except for the part where I said I would be willing to come to the table and talk in good faith about things we could do to maybe try and fix the situation. The other person immediately wanted complete gun bans, or guns mandated to be stored at a gun range. Additionally they wanted liability insurance for gun owners, yearly mental health evaluations and proficiency testing with the guns and home inspections to make sure guns were secured "correctly". And then when I said those were all a non-starter for me, I'M the one talking in bad faith. 

And yet this person, who lives here in NY, didn't know that for me to have a pistol, I had to have a permit to own one first. 

 

I have noticed that quite a lot of the people here in NY calling for stricter gun laws don't have a clue what our guns laws are.  Every suggestion I have heard already is part of our process to own a gun whether pistol or long gun. So I generally tell them to go read our rules and then come back and chat.

[MsKreed 1,178]

1 hour ago, Chris said:

On another forum I frequent I said this and my statement was dismissed as being too "Rush Limbaugh".

Does not even surprise me a little. 

1 hour ago, KarenK said:

Every suggestion I have heard already is part of our process to own a gun whether pistol or long gun. So I generally tell them to go read our rules and then come back and chat.

It's amazing how it seems like a stretch for some people to fathom that a person who would commit mass murder might be violating other laws in the process. 

 

Governor Abbott spoke yesterday (mostly about the misrepresented account of police reaction that was just being discovered).  But he answered one question addressing gun laws......specifically whether people under 18 should be prohibited from having them.  He replied by noting that, as far as he knows, 18 year olds have been allowed to own long guns since Texas became a state in 1845.....and these shootings are a newer phenomenon that we've just started seeing in the last decade or so. 

Clearly, something has changed other than gun availability.  And when you hear someone argue that the problem is dangerous "assault weapons", remind them that those have been around since1860 and were called "repeating rifles" when they were introduced.  So if escalating the name to "semi-automatic" and "assault weapon" has somehow made them more dangerous, should we change the name back to "repeating" so they kill less people?

Quote

The original Henry rifle was a sixteen shot .44 caliber rimfire, lever-action, breech-loading rifle patented by Benjamin Tyler Henry in 1860 after three years of design work.

SOURCE 

 

Edited May 28, 2022 by MsKreed

[Chris 2,161]

57 minutes ago, MsKreed said:

He replied by noting that, as far as he knows, 18 year olds have been allowed to own long guns since Texas became a state in 1845.....and these shootings are a newer phenomenon that we've just started seeing in the last decade or so

I was just saying to a friend yesterday, in reference to something else, that the 18 year olds of now don't seem to be nearly as mature as they were 30+ years ago. It's worth looking at why I think. 

[KarenK 383]

1 hour ago, Chris said:

I was just saying to a friend yesterday, in reference to something else, that the 18 year olds of now don't seem to be nearly as mature as they were 30+ years ago. It's worth looking at why I think. 

Helicopter parents.

[MsKreed 1,178]

1 hour ago, KarenK said:

Helicopter parents.

That may be one of the most overlooked prospects as a potential factor. 

As @Adam mentioned in the Buffalo topic about the Regents exams being cancelled due to possibly "traumatizing" questions:

Quote

this push to "protect" from traumatic, or offensive situations, could it itself have something to do with at least SOME of today's societal violence?

while unpleasant at yes hurtful, situations involving death, loss or opposing/asshole views are part of what shapes us in our adult lives, as seemingly unnecessary perhaps those hard lessons prepare one to at least potentially deal with such concepts a bit more rationally than if we never had to experience them before....almost like muscle memory.

Do some kids that grew up with everyone "winning" a trophy.....placated and conditioned to expect every disappointment to be either prevented or "mitigated" with some compensatory reward have an unrealistic expectation of gratification?

Are they maybe less likely to have empathy for others (that could escalate to this kind of depravity if left unchecked)? Are they more likely to overreact to rejection or disappointment and "act out" when faced with challenges that (for earlier generations) are an expected fact of life? 

Edited May 28, 2022 by MsKreed

[Chris 2,161]

On 5/28/2022 at 1:35 PM, MsKreed said:

Do some kids that grew up with everyone "winning" a trophy.....placated and conditioned to expect every disappointment to be either prevented or "mitigated" with some compensatory reward have an unrealistic expectation of gratification?

Are they maybe less likely to have empathy for others (that could escalate to this kind of depravity if left unchecked)? Are they more likely to overreact to rejection or disappointment and "act out" when faced with challenges that (for earlier generations) are an expected fact of life? 

Absolutely. 

[Chris 2,161]

Then you have people like this guy:

Quote

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Still mourning a Texas mass shooting, Democrat Beto O’Rourkegave his long-shot campaign a jolt by imploring a national audience that it was finally time for real action to curb the proliferation of high-powered guns in his home state and across America.

That was 2019, and the former congressman was running for president when he declared during a debate, “Hell, yes, we’re gonna take your AR-15,” weeks after a gunman targeting Mexican immigrants killed 23 people at a Walmart in O’Rourke’s native El Paso. 

Last week, following the massacre of 19 elementary school students and two teachers by an 18-year-old man with an AR-15-style rifle in Uvalde, Texas, O’Rourke — now campaigning for governor — again briefly seized the national political spotlight. This time, that meant crashing the news conference of the man he wants to unseat, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, and declaring — in a moment subsequently viewed widely online — that the carnage was “on you.”

 

Source

The headline reads, "O’Rourke bets shooting will shake up Texas governor’s race" but let's be honest, "hopes" is the more likely wording. The blood wasn't even congealed and this scumbag was using it for political gain in the press conference mentioned above. 

[MsKreed 1,178]

2 minutes ago, Chris said:

The blood wasn't even congealed and this scumbag was using it for political gain in the press conference mentioned above. 

And from some reports I saw, the audience included some of the grieving parents. To hijack their moment of grief and tragedy for his political stunt was callous, at the very least. 

[MsKreed 1,178]

If our political representatives can't listen to Matthew McConaughey's heartfelt thoughts on the tragedy his hometown of Uvalde is facing, then our society is beyond hope. 

This speech requires tissues, but it needs to be heard. 

 

 

[Chris 2,161]

I listened to that on the way home, and, wow. 

But he makes a lot of good points. There are actions that can be taken that, while perhaps they won't stop ALL mass killings, will make them more difficult at least. I have no real issues with a lot of what he suggests. "Red flag laws" make me squirm a little for a variety of reasons, but if worked through correctly, you could get me to sit down at the table and discuss it. Especially if part of that discussion includes more funding and actions to improve this country's absolutely pathetic mental health care. 

Part of the problem is, people will be quick to dismiss McConaughey because he is an actor. Exhibit A ( from another website ) :

Quote

This is an actor who has aspirations on Texas politics, and given the recent state of how retarded it all was (see: Governor Abbott), decided against a campaign. Remember, in politics name recognition is everything, it's by definition a popularity contest. Actors and pseudo-celebrities have a tremendous advantage (see: family names, Reagan, Dr. Oz, etc.).  

It's unlikely he's writing anything this....polished without some degree of a political consultant giving it a good shine. Maybe, but the pivot in "We have an epidemic of indiscriminate mass shootings, of parents burying their children, of inaction, and buck-passing. Saving the unnecessary loss of lives is not a partisan issue." is vivid, smooth, centrist appeal, without choosing a side on an issue until the support has been solidified underneath that issue. This reeks of a pro's work. 

That was in reference to the initial statement he released the day after. I've seen or heard him in other interviews, he's not stupid. And what he's saying is exactly what needs to happen: put aside the partisan BS and work together. Remember and restore our values ( for all people ) and responsibilities. 

As I've said elsewhere, we need to start thinking before speaking, or typing. Ask yourself, "Am I doing more harm than good here?" And listening to McConaughey speak, yeah he's an actor and knows how to deliver the goods, but he's spot on. And if a sprinkle of theatrics drives the point home, so be it. 

It's sure a lot more helpful than what the politicians are "doing", including the local yokel using the hashtag "#behind everybladeofgrass."

[MsKreed 1,178]

9 minutes ago, Chris said:

Saving the unnecessary loss of lives is not a partisan issue." is vivid, smooth, centrist appeal, without choosing a side on an issue until the support has been solidified underneath that issue. This reeks of a pro's work. 

That tripe right there is part of the problem. 

Choose a side???  As if there must be "sides"?  If it's not adversarial, it must be polished political shine???  Wasn't Biden's win based on uniting and finding common ground? 

It's exactly the point McConaughey tried to make: 

Quote

Enough with the counter-punching. Enough with the invalidation of the “other side”

I don't know what source you got that from, but they sound like they represent what he meant with:

Quote

Especially on this issue....I promise you. America – you and me – we are not as divided as we are being told we are.

Also.....

27 minutes ago, Chris said:

And listening to McConaughey speak, yeah he's an actor and knows how to deliver the goods, but he's spot on. And if a sprinkle of theatrics drives the point home, so be it. 

It's sure a lot more helpful than what the politicians are "doing", including the local yokel using the hashtag "#behind everybladeofgrass."

He's spot on, and actually speaking as someone with ties to the people and community. So, actor or not (or the son of a former Uvalde teacher) dismissing his sincerity is arrogant asshattery.  And by promoting a rational discussion, he's already done a helluva lot more than any politician wearing an orange shirt.  

[Chris 2,161]

Yeah I was pretty disappointed in the person that posted that. And I only shared half of their post here.

 

[Chris 2,161]

Nothing is sacred. Nowhere is safe: https://apnews.com/article/chicago-july-4-parade-shooting-92b50feb80c19afe7842b9caf08545cb

[MsKreed 1,178]

 

Looks like a bug....

[Chris 2,161]

48 minutes ago, MsKreed said:

Looks like a bug....

And should be dealt with as such. POS.

 

[Hal 341]

2 hours ago, Chris said:

And should be dealt with as such. POS.

 

And dealt with Swiftly ! Now that has had name and picture out for all the World to see his life is complete. By recognizing his actions on all media sources we have lent him credibility or just validation IDK . Is this why they do it , they need others to know they exist ? But is there a chance even a slim chance that by not giving these … whatever’s , their 15 minutes of fame maybe just maybe in time this approach might work ? I sure as hell don’t have the answers , although for the sakes of those that lose their lives to these wastes of oxygen I wish I did ! 
It is said and is a fact that more people remember the killers names than the victims so to that I would say just reverse that by not giving validation to murderers , no pictures to swear at , no name to remember , wipe their very existence from all records from birth forward … nothing left of them at all . Just my thoughts . 
 

[MsKreed 1,178]

8 hours ago, Hal said:

It is said and is a fact that more people remember the killers names than the victims so to that I would say just reverse that by not giving validation to murderers

I promised myself back in 1995 to never forget the name Baylee Almon. While the whole country remembered the image of a fire fighter carrying her out of the OKC building, few knew her name - but everyone knew the name of the monster that committed the atrocity.

 

In yesterday's case, the creep's name and photo were circulated while he was still at large.....which is understandable.  But once he was in custody, he deserves no more 'notoriety'.

[Chris 2,161]

I am completely in favor of these pukes being referred to as “the scumbag” on all news outlets once they’re in custody.

But then again no one ever accused me of media professionalism 🫤

[TTL News 308]

Quote

 

GREENWOOD, Ind. (AP) — Three people were fatally shot and two were injured Sunday evening at an Indiana mall after a man with a rifle opened fire in a food court and an armed civilian shot and killed him, police said.

The man entered the Greenwood Park Mall with a rifle and several magazines of ammunition and began firing in the food court, Greenwood Police Department Chief Jim Ison said.

A 22-year-old from nearby Bartholomew County who was legally carrying a firearm at the mall shot and killed the gunman, Ison said at a news conference.

Four of those hit by gunfire were females and one was a male, Ison said. He didn’t immediately know the specific gender or age of those who were killed.

He said a 12-year-old girl was among the two injured, both of whom are in stable condition.

Police confiscated a suspicious backpack that was in a bathroom near the food court, Ison said.

Officers went to the mall at about 6 p.m. for reports of the shooting.

 

Read the rest here.

[KarenK 383]

And yet you can be sure that someone is going to be outraged at that kid and demand charges be filed.  More than likely a family member of the deceased gunman.