If mass murderers don’t need guns to commit their mass murders, how come hunters need a rifle to hunt?
After all, it would have been just as easy for them to get that buck with, say, a swiss army knife, right? Or a truck.
You can go after bears with a Bowie knife but you can’t dynamite fish. How is that fair? I can imagine varied mass-murder schemes that haven’t been tried yet AFAIK. An easy one: broadcast an announcement for cheap hand sanitizer at WalMart. Customers will trample each other in the mass panic. No firearms needed, except to pick-off escapees.
-
Broadcast stations come under FCC rules.
-
As** Shodan** sez, most media wont publish rape victims.
-
Some media is already doing this voluntarily.
And sure, people want to know about the news, but they dont need to know the guys name.
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303611
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1532708616679144
I would disagree. Try googling images of children waiting at a bus stop. A mass murderer doesn’t even have to get out of the car. it will be arms and legs flying everywhere while the driver listens to Helter Skelter in air conditioned comfort.
It’s not a talking point. It’s the realization that mass murderers aren’t restricted to possession of a gun.
38,000 people died in auto accidents last year. that’s more than double gun deaths. Assuming ALL of the car deaths are accidents it’s still an indication of how deadly a 4000 lb vehicle is. Unlike guns a car is it’s own escape pod. It can move from murder scene to murder scene without reloading or waiting for police to arrive.
When you understand this then you’ll understand the gun is not the problem and not a limiting factor for a mass murderer.
Stores have point of sale systems already, which capture the information. It wouldn’t be hard for the people who supply this software to generate the proper report. I’m fine with excluding purchases of a few boxes - we can assume that Mr. Killer would not want to be so well know to the clerks.
The real cost is that of the police. That’s why something like TSA Pre-check would be good. If you need to buy lots of ammo all the time, stop in and get pre-cleared. No cops coming to your door.
Then you become a person of interest. One of the first things I’d think the police would do is check on-line for, say, ISIS fan posts. This would be a law, and if you want to violate it, the consequences are on you.
The number of false positives will be driven by the cutoff point for checking up on the purchase. I suspect there is a distribution of ammo sales, and we’d only be interested in the tail.
You might collect data on sales of a box or two, but you wouldn’t do anything about it unless this was done every day for a period of weeks.
A lot of these people have made threats on line. You certainly don’t want to check out anyone who has spouted off, but the combination of big ammo purchases and “death to the infidels” posts might be worth looking at.
When I used to live near Princeton people went after bucks with trucks all the time.
Usually unintentionally though.
Good point. People with this kind of record who buy lots of ammo should be checked also. And I agree also with your major point. These people don’t tend to be mass murderers, but I suspect their murder rate is higher than average.
Did you notice the word “victim” in your sentence? Mass murderers aren’t victims.
And we already had a thread where some wanted to shit on the First Amendment for the supposed benefit of the Second.
Not that it would help. If a nut hears of a mass killing, and gets turned on by it, he’s not going to care that the identity of the shooter isn’t given.
Now they check on big fertilizer purchases and we’ve managed to survive.
Dynamite is licensed also, though almost all of it is used legitimately.
Deflection. You avoid the issue by talking about cars instead. Everyone already knows about cars. You don’t have any special knowledge about cars that you can share with us.
Deflect deflect deflect.
None of this has anything to do with my point. It’s just nuts that you refuse to admit that sometimes a gun is the most effective tool for killing. Everyone knows this. When you refuse to admit even this obvious fact, then it’s impossible to have a discussion. It’s like trying to argue that cars aren’t sometimes the best tool to get from point a to point b.
It seems like reporting the incident causes others, not mentioning the killer’s name.
It is a good point in my opinion. If more people are killed in auto accidents than shootings, perhaps we should spend more effort on auto accidents.
While that number includes all manner of death by gun injury, including suicides, the car accident deaths likely include single car accident as well as multi car wrecks.
Perhaps we should do more to prevent car accidents. But we can’t just ignore gun deaths.
ETA I’m a gun owner, and I’m not suggesting anything from an antigun perspective.
If I may junior-mod a bit, I would prefer for this thread to be about the specific topic of mass shooters with clean backgrounds, not morphing into a general topic of gun control and gun violence (which we have had dozens of threads about.)
Of course a gun can be an effective tool for killing. that’s not the argument. It’s the PERSON shooting the gun. Take away the gun and the PERSON uses something else. The problem is the PERSON. Not the gun, or the car, or the bomb.
the wackjob who shot up Las Vegas was a pilot. He could have flown 100 gallons of avgas into a school building at 150 mph. He would have easily killed more than the 58 he killed with a gun.
I’m not dismissing the gun. You’re dismissing the person intent on killing who doesn’t need a gun. If a gun isn’t needed, it’s not the problem.
Understandable, but the tangents to the subject are part of the argument. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to discuss mass shooters as an issue without pointing out that the gun isn’t the driving force. It’s an inert object. It’s the person using the gun that’s the problem.
Even if we could separate the gun from the mass murderer we’re still stuck with the mass-murderer.
So, the question is one that exists in a bubble. If the gun can be replaced then the solution involves fixing the person and not trying to replace an infinite number of tools used to kill people.
We just had a mass shooter in my town. To me he was a front-and-center wackjob. His lifestyle was (for want of a better word) strange. And by strange I mean anti-social. But we live in a society where “strange” is a way of life guaranteed by our constitution. the best defense against such a person are friends and family. They are the people who best know the potential killer. However, he used his friends to hide his guns from his parents. The solution broke down.