Are the numerous mass shootings an evidence of America's moral decline?

[The Rogue Tomato]

I like my right to bear arms, and generally agree that it takes a good guy with a gun to bring down a bad guy on a spree, but where can I access data that speaks about your last paragraph?  When have spree killings been stopped by a civilian or law enforcement prior to killing intended masses?  And how would their intentions be known that they were preempted from killing scores more?

I hear about them all the time in Texas.  I don't know if there's a site that tracks them all. 

Mother Jones set its criteria deliberately to leave out thwarted mass shootings in order to make a case for gun control.  You can't count thwarted mass shootings if you only count those where 3 or more people died, because it automatically leaves out cases where the potential victims were able to defend themselves.  Bang, the shooter is dead, and the mass shooting is cut short.  That seems pretty obvious to me. 

That's why mass shooters almost always deliberately go to gun-free zones.  They may be crazy, but they're not stupid.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=The Rogue Tomato]Mother Jones set its criteria deliberately to leave out thwarted mass shootings in order to make a case for gun control.  You can't count thwarted mass shootings if you only count those where 3 or more people died, because it automatically leaves out cases where the potential victims were able to defend themselves.  Bang, the shooter is dead, and the mass shooting is cut short.  That seems pretty obvious to me.  [/quote]

You mean Alayman used statistics with deliberately restrictive criteria, even going so far as to change the standard accepted definition of mass shooting, because the actual data would not prove the case he and they were trying to make? 

 

[ThatGirl]

I like my right to bear arms, and generally agree that it takes a good guy with a gun to bring down a bad guy on a spree, but where can I access data that speaks about your last paragraph?  When have spree killings been stopped by a civilian or law enforcement prior to killing intended masses?  And how would their intentions be known that they were preempted from killing scores more?

The stories are out there but they don't get as much media attention as mass shootings do.  You have to go looking for them.  "No people were killed in mass shootings today" doesn't make for a good headline as far as the media is concerned.  It's pretty clear in some cases that the intent is to kill as many people as possible.  Like in these stories...
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html

It's more common to find stories where armed citizens fight back in situations that could potentially produce large numbers of fatalities even though the initial intent was something like robbery.  I like to peruse youtube and watch security videos of armed citizens fighting back.  This is one of my favorites just because you don't mess with senior citizens.  Also, the gun he's using is one of my two main carry handguns.  I read that in a report about this incident.  =)  Was it their intent to kill a lot of people?  Who knows?  But they were threatening a lot of people.

Senior Citizen Opens Fire on Robbers of Internet Cafe

Also, Alayman, you say you "like" your right to bear arms.  But do you exercise that right?  Because if you don't, you can like it all you want but if you're ever caught in a situation like this you can't protect your son and wife.  If you're not licensed to carry then I encourage you to take care of that and practice often. 

 

[christundivided]

Yes, I'm for legalizing pot and if you understood all the ramification you might too.  And there's a reason why people of all moral stances can agree on the gay marriage question.  It's because we all agree on the most important aspect of the question; no marriage whether gay or straight has got the slightest thing to do with the government.  Get the government out of the business of regulating/licensing/defining personal relationships.

Also, I didn't say that shacking up isn't a problem in our society.  I said it isn't "the standard" as you say it is.  6,000 women between the ages of 15-44 cohabitating at some point within a 4 year span does not constitute a "standard".

i agree with you on a lot of issues.... but not on the issue of legalizing marijuana.... when i did my research on medical marijuana for a term paper in premed, years ago, i found out that when you strip away all the political talking points from both sides of the issue... and look specifically at what the drug thc does in the human body... and how it makes changes in dna that effect even the offspring of a casual user ... the ramifications for legalizing it and making its use as common as alcoholic beverages are today is much worse than current cost of trying to control it...and when compared to moderate alcohol use the moderate use of marijuana is many times more dangerous with longer lasting effects......  .

i could go into a more detailed description about absorption rates... targeted tissues... pharmacodynamics etc. etc.... but it be would like writing my term paper all over again..... and would take up several pages of the forum.....  but for most people just to learn that it is many times more cancerous than tobacco is enough.... especially in a world where even staunch liberals have declared war on the tobacco industry because of the long term health care costs being passed on to non smokers through increased insurance premiums and the issue of second hand smoke effecting bystanders...........  legalize marijuana and health care costs related to marijuana use will rise for both users an nonusers alike to the point they will make current costs for problems related to other recreational substance use look minor by comparison.....

 

You hit on just one more facet of liberal hypocrisy. There are many people that believe smoking, in any form, is in the least.... immoral. Yet, they don't have a single problem with pot. What hypocrisy.

Personally, I'm somewhat okay with medical pot, but I think it should be restricted for chronic pain where other drugs haven't been shown to be affective. I have a friend that just went through a battle with cancer and they did give him... for the lack of a better term.... pot pills for pain and nausea. It really helped him.

On the other hand, pot is a gateway drug. Its wasn't for me personally. I use to smoke it when I was in my teens. It never lead to anything but I got saved shortly after trying drugs. It might have lead to many other things if it hadn't been for Christ. I had friends that went on to Cocaine, crack, meth, heroin, and etc. Pot started it for them. Christ saved most of them from the gutter but I do have one friend that has spent several years in jail doing hard time.... and it all began with pot. 

 

[ThatGirl]

Starbucks now wants a gun free store, but wont enforce it.

That's just inviting criminals to your store.  Contrast that with this pizza shop in VA.  Do you think a criminal is more likely to try to rob or otherwise commit a crime in a Starbucks where they are pretty sure no good people are armed, or in a pizza shop where everyone there could be armed?  My money is on the pizza shop being the safer place.   

http://wtkr.com/2013/02/15/virginia-beach-pizza-shop-offering-discount-to-gun-owners/ 

 

[christundivided]

The stories are out there but they don't get as much media attention as mass shootings do.  You have to go looking for them.  "No people were killed in mass shootings today" doesn't make for a good headline as far as the media is concerned.  It's pretty clear in some cases that the intent is to kill as many people as possible.  Like in these stories...
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html

It's more common to find stories where armed citizens fight back in situations that could potentially produce large numbers of fatalities even though the initial intent was something like robbery.  I like to peruse youtube and watch security videos of armed citizens fighting back.  This is one of my favorites just because you don't mess with senior citizens.  Also, the gun he's using is one of my two main carry handguns.  I read that in a report about this incident.  =)  Was it their intent to kill a lot of people?  Who knows?  But they were threatening a lot of people.

Senior Citizen Opens Fire on Robbers of Internet Cafe

If you look at statistical data (not necessarily what has been spoken of previously in this thread)... over a long period of time deaths from mass killing is rather small in comparisons to overall deaths being caused single murders. Yet, if you look close, you will see that cases of mass murder seem to happen in close proximity to one another with rather long periods between when nothing happens. I do believe the recent mass shootings are an indication of change. That change may dwindle and rise again. I think you have to admit that the mentality it takes to commit a killing of innocent people on a mass scale is different than crimes of passion, or revenge, and etc. There is a cold, calculating, and methodical rhythm to recent shoots.

 

[ThatGirl]

You hit on just one more facet of liberal hypocrisy. There are many people that smoking in any form is in the least.... immoral. Yet, they don't have a single problem with pot. What hypocrisy.

Personally, I'm somewhat okay with medical pot, but I think it should be restricted for in chronic pain where other drugs haven't been shown to be affective. I have a friend that just went through a battle with cancer and they did give him... for the lack of a better term.... pot pills for pain and nausea. It really helped him.

On the other hand, pot is a gateway drug. Its wasn't for me personally. I use to smoke it when I was in my teens. It never lead to anything but I got saved shortly after trying drugs. It might have lead to many other things if it hadn't been for Christ. I had friends that went on to Cocaine, crack, meth, heroin, and etc. Pot started it for them. Christ saved most of them from the gutter but I do have one friend that has spent several years in jail doing hard time.... and it all began with pot.

So you think the government is in a better position than you are to decide what treatment is best for you?  I live with chronic pain, I don't take my prescribed medications because the side effect are horrible.  It's not that they don't work, it's that they are not anything I want to put in my body.  It should be MY choice which one I prefer to use to manage pain.  That is not a decision for the government to make for me.  I happen to think I am in a better position to make decisions for my personal life than they are. 

 

[rsc2a]

If you look at statistical data (not necessarily what has been spoken of previously in this thread)... over a long period of time deaths from mass killing is rather small in comparisons to overall deaths being caused single murders. Yet, if you look close, you will see that cases of mass murder seem to happen in close proximity to one another with rather long periods between when nothing happens. I do believe the recent mass shootings are an indication of change. That change may dwindle and rise again. I think you have to admit that the mentality it takes to commit a killing of innocent people on a mass scale is different than crimes of passion, or revenge, and etc. There is a cold, calculating, and methodical rhythm to recent shoots.

Draw a straight line through blue points (number of incidents). It's nearly horizontal. In other words, no real change over time.

 

[FreeToBeMe]

Thanks to Bill Clinton, the military is disarmed on their own bases. 

Please provide a source that states the military walked around "armed" on bases prior to Bill Clinton.

I joined the Army in 1978 and retired in 2002.  On every base I was stationed since 1978, we were NEVER allowed to walk around armed on base.  All arms were stored in a secured arms room and issued out only for the purposes of weapons qualifications, training exercises, or cleaning.  For weapons qualifications, we did not receive live ammo until we arrived at the range.  For training exercises, we used blanks.  Even for deployments, we were not given ammo until we arrived in the country we deployed to.   

The only military folks that were/are armed on a consistent basis are Military Police.  I still work on a military base, and the MPs and civilian security folks are armed. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

... I think you have to admit that the mentality it takes to commit a killing of innocent people on a mass scale is different than crimes of passion, or revenge, and etc. There is a cold, calculating, and methodical rhythm to recent shoots.

Don't bother trying to use common sense with the mouth breathers like rsc2a.

 

[ALAYMAN]

You mean Alayman used statistics with deliberately restrictive criteria, even going so far as to change the standard accepted definition of mass shooting, because the actual data would not prove the case he and they were trying to make? 

Until you go back and admit that you misattributed your "cold war" ignorant comments to me, you have the intellectual and ethical equivalency of BibleBeliever, and any interaction with you will be gauged as such.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I like my right to bear arms, and generally agree that it takes a good guy with a gun to bring down a bad guy on a spree, but where can I access data that speaks about your last paragraph?  When have spree killings been stopped by a civilian or law enforcement prior to killing intended masses?  And how would their intentions be known that they were preempted from killing scores more?

I hear about them all the time in Texas.  I don't know if there's a site that tracks them all. 

Mother Jones set its criteria deliberately to leave out thwarted mass shootings in order to make a case for gun control.  You can't count thwarted mass shootings if you only count those where 3 or more people died, because it automatically leaves out cases where the potential victims were able to defend themselves.  Bang, the shooter is dead, and the mass shooting is cut short.  That seems pretty obvious to me. 

That's why mass shooters almost always deliberately go to gun-free zones.  They may be crazy, but they're not stupid.

Okay, you, JrChurch, ThatGirl, and FSSL have convinced me.  That didn't really take a whole lot.  Like I said, I like my right to bear arms.

Also, Alayman, you say you "like" your right to bear arms.  But do you exercise that right?  Because if you don't, you can like it all you want but if you're ever caught in a situation like this you can't protect your son and wife.  If you're not licensed to carry then I encourage you to take care of that and practice often. 

I've thought about it, often.

And as much as I agree with much of your libertarian leanings towards keeping big government in check, particularly regarding our 2nd amendment rights, the fact is that I think our culture of death is manifesting itself in a variety of ways, including the uptick of spree killings.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Thanks to Bill Clinton, the military is disarmed on their own bases. 

Please provide a source that states the military walked around "armed" on bases prior to Bill Clinton.

I joined the Army in 1978 and retired in 2002.  On every base I was stationed since 1978, we were NEVER allowed to walk around armed on base.  All arms were stored in a secured arms room and issued out only for the purposes of weapons qualifications, training exercises, or cleaning.  For weapons qualifications, we did not receive live ammo until we arrived at the range.  For training exercises, we used blanks.  Even for deployments, we were not given ammo until we arrived in the country we deployed to.   

The only military folks that were/are armed on a consistent basis are Military Police.  I still work on a military base, and the MPs and civilian security folks are armed.

Clinton instituted these rules in 1993. 

a. The authorization to carry firearms will be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or Department of the Army (DA) assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried.

b. DA personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties will be armed.

c. DA personnel are authorized to carry firearms while engaged in security duties, protecting personnel and vital Government assets, or guarding prisoners.

In other words, while the MPs could always carry guns, the people at the Fort Hood cafeteria were sitting ducks.  Wasn't it an MP who shot Nidal Hasan?  (I seriously forget).  However, if any of the rest of the personnel were armed, the incident would have been cut short sooner. 

There's no reason to disarm the military on their own bases.  They're the most highly trained people in how to handle firearms safely. 

 

[ThatGirl]

And as much as I agree with much of your libertarian leanings towards keeping big government in check, particularly regarding our 2nd amendment rights, the fact is that I think our culture of death is manifesting itself in a variety of ways, including the uptick of spree killings.

"Culture of death"...you mean like violent video games that seem to be a key factor in the lives of many (if not most or even all, I haven't researched it I've just noticed it to be common) of the shooters we are now familiar with?  I feel like there isn't enough attention being paid to that detail and what seems to me to be a common thread. 

 

[christundivided]

You hit on just one more facet of liberal hypocrisy. There are many people that smoking in any form is in the least.... immoral. Yet, they don't have a single problem with pot. What hypocrisy.

Personally, I'm somewhat okay with medical pot, but I think it should be restricted for in chronic pain where other drugs haven't been shown to be affective. I have a friend that just went through a battle with cancer and they did give him... for the lack of a better term.... pot pills for pain and nausea. It really helped him.

On the other hand, pot is a gateway drug. Its wasn't for me personally. I use to smoke it when I was in my teens. It never lead to anything but I got saved shortly after trying drugs. It might have lead to many other things if it hadn't been for Christ. I had friends that went on to Cocaine, crack, meth, heroin, and etc. Pot started it for them. Christ saved most of them from the gutter but I do have one friend that has spent several years in jail doing hard time.... and it all began with pot.

So you think the government is in a better position than you are to decide what treatment is best for you?  I live with chronic pain, I don't take my prescribed medications because the side effect are horrible.  It's not that they don't work, it's that they are not anything I want to put in my body.  It should be MY choice which one I prefer to use to manage pain.  That is not a decision for the government to make for me.  I happen to think I am in a better position to make decisions for my personal life than they are.

Never said they had that right. Yet, why be so self centered? Do you not realize that legalizing it has affects beyond what you choose to use for pain control?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

One more note on Nidal Hasan...  If all military personnel were permitted to be armed at all times if they so wished, I would bet dollars to doughnuts (whatever that means) that Hasan would never have tried to commit such an atrocity.  He's a coward.  He would have known he'd get shot down within seconds. 

 

[ThatGirl]

You hit on just one more facet of liberal hypocrisy. There are many people that smoking in any form is in the least.... immoral. Yet, they don't have a single problem with pot. What hypocrisy.

Personally, I'm somewhat okay with medical pot, but I think it should be restricted for in chronic pain where other drugs haven't been shown to be affective. I have a friend that just went through a battle with cancer and they did give him... for the lack of a better term.... pot pills for pain and nausea. It really helped him.

On the other hand, pot is a gateway drug. Its wasn't for me personally. I use to smoke it when I was in my teens. It never lead to anything but I got saved shortly after trying drugs. It might have lead to many other things if it hadn't been for Christ. I had friends that went on to Cocaine, crack, meth, heroin, and etc. Pot started it for them. Christ saved most of them from the gutter but I do have one friend that has spent several years in jail doing hard time.... and it all began with pot.

So you think the government is in a better position than you are to decide what treatment is best for you?  I live with chronic pain, I don't take my prescribed medications because the side effect are horrible.  It's not that they don't work, it's that they are not anything I want to put in my body.  It should be MY choice which one I prefer to use to manage pain.  That is not a decision for the government to make for me.  I happen to think I am in a better position to make decisions for my personal life than they are.

Never said they had that right. Yet, why be so self centered? Do you not realize that legalizing it has affects beyond what you choose to use for pain control?

Do you realize that the number of people using it illegally in this country is astronomical?  Yet people like myself who would love to try it for pain can't do so because we are law abiding citizens.  Self centered?  It's people who oppose it's legalization who are keeping it from the people who need it and keeping it only in the hands of those who wish to abuse it.  It's just the like gun issue.  The only people affected by it are the ones who obey the law.  The rest don't care either way.  They're still going to use it.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Until you go back and admit that you misattributed your "cold war" ignorant comments to me, you have the intellectual and ethical equivalency of BibleBeliever, and any interaction with you will be gauged as such.[/quote]

It's really not that complicated if you slow down and read more carefully.

- I never attributed the initial cold war comments to you. That would be kind of nuts since I was the one that first made them. The initial cold war comment included in a lengthy list of how some things were worse in the past than today.

- You latched onto that particular example and made a comparison to abortion.

- I pointed out that your comparative reasoning was absurd. In fact, I could have stated that it would be the equivalent of comparing Miley's latest video to the history of lynch mobs, but I refrained.

- You then incorrectly claimed that I referred to mass killings a "past problem". I would ask you to provide the link, but that would be impossible since at this point you are now wholesale making stuff up instead of admitting you were wrong. Here I'll go ahead and reference the link that you got wrong.

- I then pointed that you had a problem reading the link I have provided above: that I had mentioned a past problem (in case you are still struggling, this would be the Soviets) and a current problem (here it would be abortion). I pointed out that these were the two examples you selected for comparison: abortions and the Soviets. You called me a liar. So tell me: did you or did you not select the Soviets as an example? (Remember: I provided a lengthy list in which you selected one particular example.

- The final step was for you to exhibit what Paul would refer to as "works of the flesh" instead of "fruit of the Spirit".

 

[FreeToBeMe]

Clinton instituted these rules in 1993. 

a. The authorization to carry firearms will be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or Department of the Army (DA) assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried.

b. DA personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties will be armed.

c. DA personnel are authorized to carry firearms while engaged in security duties, protecting personnel and vital Government assets, or guarding prisoners.

In other words, while the MPs could always carry guns, the people at the Fort Hood cafeteria were sitting ducks.  Wasn't it an MP who shot Nidal Hasan?  (I seriously forget).  However, if any of the rest of the personnel were armed, the incident would have been cut short sooner. 

There's no reason to disarm the military on their own bases.  They're the most highly trained people in how to handle firearms safely.

Didn't you read what I stated?  You make it sound like that prior to 1993, military personnel routinely walked around base armed with weapons.  That is not the case.  Had Hasan done what he did on Fort Hood in 1981 (I was stationed there then), the outcome unfortunately would still have been the same.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]Do you not realize that legalizing it has affects beyond what you choose to use for pain control?[/quote]

Effects like nearly half of the people we lock up in prisons (after lengthy and expensive trials) not having to be locked up. From this, children having both parents at home instead of being raised by only one?

Effects like the US government losing a chunk of its ability to monitor and control the actions of its citizens?

Effects like drug addiction being treated like a medical problem instead of treating people with medical problems like criminals?

Effects like eliminating the government subsidies and economic protections for Latin American drug cartels and inner-city gangs?