Multiple People Shot Outside Empire State Building

muciti said:

I'd say the OP and a couple of the comments from other are politisizing this. Many people tried to exploit the Colorado (and other) shootings as a political tool to promote their ideology about gun control laws......now you guys are turning this into the same just from the opposite view.

Click to expand...

Well, you know the argument would come up. If we conservatives didn't bring it up, it would have surfaced from the left side and still been part of the discussion.

molten_dragon said:

Maybe it's just because the media is paying more attention to it right now, but does it seem to anyone else like there have been a LOT of mass shootings recently?

Click to expand...

Yes, it does.

tech30528 said:

The report I just heard on the radio said he was a women's accessories designer and was laid off a year ago.They also said one other person was killed and 9 injured, some possibly by police gunfire. Sure hope the person who died (besides the gunman) wasn't shot by a cop. Sounds like they need to disarm the police. They seem to be every bit as reckless as the shooter.

Click to expand...

Police are notoriously bad shots. Some years ago, there was an incident in Virginia Beach where some guy was said to try to run over some cops with his car. After over 100 shots, it was discovered that only a few actually hit the perp to kill him. Most either hit the car or were never found. At least they could hit the car. It's the idea of pray and spray and hope something hits in the melee.

You're right I hope innocent by standers weren't hurt.

I'll show my age and tell you what I know from living in NYC 1955-1960.

The NYC gun ban is called the Sullivan Law. Sullivan was a crooked politician who got this law passed for his own protection. Getting caught with a gun in NYC is very serious. However, like drugs, you can buy one if you want one.

The law is just to make sure honest citizens can't fight crooked bureaucrats.

I'm curious. If preventing shooters from obtaining the weapons they need to kill won't stop them, what will? I hear a lot of "Rawr! Can't ban guns!" in these arguments, but very seldom any actual alternatives. The only idea I heard after the Batman shooting was all kinds of security in movie theatres. That suggestion was, of course, absurd, and it boggles my mind how the same people who lament the coming of a Big Brother future were in favor of constant scrutiny of people anytime they go outside their homes.

So, gun advocates, if disarming the violent won't stop them, what will?

Paschendale said:

I'm curious. If preventing shooters from obtaining the weapons they need to kill won't stop them, what will? I hear a lot of "Rawr! Can't ban guns!" in these arguments, but very seldom any actual alternatives. The only idea I heard after the Batman shooting was all kinds of security in movie theatres. That suggestion was, of course, absurd, and it boggles my mind how the same people who lament the coming of a Big Brother future were in favor of constant scrutiny of people anytime they go outside their homes.

So, gun advocates, if disarming the violent won't stop them, what will?

Click to expand...

Arm the citizens. There will be a lot of shootings for awhile, but that will be the law-abiding citizens, cleaning house. Then there will be peace because an armed society is a polite society.

Paschendale said:

I'm curious. If preventing shooters from obtaining the weapons they need to kill won't stop them, what will? I hear a lot of "Rawr! Can't ban guns!" in these arguments, but very seldom any actual alternatives. The only idea I heard after the Batman shooting was all kinds of security in movie theatres. That suggestion was, of course, absurd, and it boggles my mind how the same people who lament the coming of a Big Brother future were in favor of constant scrutiny of people anytime they go outside their homes.

So, gun advocates, if disarming the violent won't stop them, what will?

Click to expand...

Early intervention? What do you hear repeatedly in interviews following these mass shootings?:

"Well, he'd been sick/ill/stressed/suffering from mental issues".

And what do most of them have in common:

Desperation, unemployment, high-stress lifestyles or failures deriving from same, etc.

So what we have then, is a profile. And we can then take that profile and utilize it to increase our focus on preventative actions instead of honing our post-incident reactions and Monday morning quarterbacking.


Now, if we go down another path and discuss gang-related gun violence or drug-related gun violence the answers are slightly different. Discourage gang activity by providing legitimate options for escape for young children before they ever get approached by gang leaders. Legalize possession of most drugs and create a regulated sales system a la California.

Guns aren't the problem. Environments are the problem. Even if you destroyed every single gun in existence these people would still find a way to kill and physically assault others. Guns are just a weapon, not a cause. We have to stop approaching it that way.

bicycleman said:

Arm the citizens. There will be a lot of shootings for awhile, but that will be the law-abiding citizens, cleaning house. Then there will be peace because an armed society is a polite society.

Click to expand...

Oh, to live in an idealistic world where an idea like that would be practical. One thing I don't understand is why vehemently pro gun people apply the "slippery slope" argument to their fear of gun control (ie. making people register their guns, waiting periods, etc.) but don't see how the that same "slippery slope" argument could apply to arming everyone.

Dr_Patrick said:

Oh, to live in an idealistic world where an idea like that would be practical. One thing I don't understand is why vehemently pro gun people apply the "slippery slope" argument to their fear of gun control (ie. making people register their guns, waiting periods, etc.) but don't see how the that same "slippery slope" argument could apply to arming everyone.

Click to expand...

Pro gun advocates do not advocate gun registration. I think you mean pro anti-gunners and you might have mistyped.

molten_dragon said:

Maybe it's just because the media is paying more attention to it right now, but does it seem to anyone else like there have been a LOT of mass shootings recently?

Click to expand...

Imagine if mass media coverage and at-the-moment news broadcasting had been a reality in the days of Bonnie and Clyde or the James Gang.
Some of the problem is that people are collectively feeling stressed, due to the economic slump we are in. Another problem (imo) is that kis are not taught how to handle stress nearly as well as used to be the case, because for the most part, we've lived lives of relative ease since WW2. When you've lived your entire life not having to worry or learn how to deal with hardship and emotionally tough circumstances, you're less likely to be able to cope effectively.

bicycleman said:

Pro gun advocates do not advocate gun registration. I think you mean pro anti-gunners and you might have mistyped.

Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that pro gun people fear that gun registration and waiting periods are a slippery slope to taking away everyone's guns. Sorry if I wasn't clear there.

At my office, they required some training on how to prevent work place violence. They had some slides up there, mentioning employees who didn't get the promotions they thought they should get, poor homelife, working too hard, carrying more than one job. Yet, nothing was ever mentioned about poor management. Management was always isolated. Yet, at the root of many disgruntled employees is poor management, management promoting their own friends, management having it in for a certain employee. I should know because I am a union steward, who has seen quite a bit of poor management being the root of quite a bit of frustration at the work place.

You notice in this case, that the guy shot his boss. I had heard that he was fired yesterday, and shot his boss today.

bicycleman said:

Just heard on the news that the gunman was fired from his job. The usual MO with somebody like this is he probably got so frustrated that he felt life wasn't worth living so he planned a group suicide with his boss and anyone who got a promotion at his expense. More than likely, he killed himself afterwards, or at least decided to try suicide by cop.

Click to expand...

Well ... at least he didn't get fired from the Post Office.

A L

waas said:

So you're saying this? It didn't work this one time, so let's never try it again!

Click to expand...

Are you familiar with Einsteins definition of insanity?

tessaesque said:

Early intervention? What do you hear repeatedly in interviews following these mass shootings?:

"Well, he'd been sick/ill/stressed/suffering from mental issues".

And what do most of them have in common:

Desperation, unemployment, high-stress lifestyles or failures deriving from same, etc.

So what we have then, is a profile. And we can then take that profile and utilize it to increase our focus on preventative actions instead of honing our post-incident reactions and Monday morning quarterbacking.


Now, if we go down another path and discuss gang-related gun violence or drug-related gun violence the answers are slightly different. Discourage gang activity by providing legitimate options for escape for young children before they ever get approached by gang leaders. Legalize possession of most drugs and create a regulated sales system a la California.

Guns aren't the problem. Environments are the problem. Even if you destroyed every single gun in existence these people would still find a way to kill and physically assault others. Guns are just a weapon, not a cause. We have to stop approaching it that way.

Click to expand...

Agreed about the gang related violence part. End the war on drugs and provide a legal avenue for obtaining the drugs that people want, and most of the cause of gang violence will disappear. If the same logic of "people will get guns anyway, so there's no point in making laws to stop them" works on guns, why not use it on drugs? People want 'em, so let's stop fighting the inevitable.

But there's a few problems with your other plan, though. First is that it wouldn't work with anyone who doesn't seek psychological help. Doctors only have an opportunity to diagnose those who go in for treatment. Unless you just want to cast a wide net. But then there's another problem. Most people who fit that profile don't go nuts and shoot anyone. Admittedly, that's the same problem with gun restrictions. Most gun owners don't go nuts and shoot anyone either, but that's why restrictions would need to be carefully tailored. But that's not the issue.

Suppose we do examine everyone who could theoretically fit this profile. First we have to gather that info on all the ones that don't seek out treatment. How much increased surveillance will that require? Do we really want the government keeping psychological profiles on all of us? How would we obtain that information? Spying on people everywhere they go in public? Spying on people in their homes? That's an awful lot of intrusion to identify these folks. And then what? What are these preventative measures? Are we going to force people to seek out treatment? Imprison them for crimes they might commit?

In theory, I like what you're saying. But in practice, I have no idea how it could work without massive infringements of privacy and liberty.

Dr_Patrick said:

What I'm saying is that pro gun people fear that gun registration and waiting periods are a slippery slope to taking away everyone's guns. Sorry if I wasn't clear there.

Click to expand...

Waiting periods only delay law abiding citizens, not criminals. Registrations do not stop crime nor do they help solve crime,if they did there would be plenty of stories of fire registrations stopping crime or solving crime. The only reason for firearm registrations is to facilitate confiscation.


GunCite - Gun Control: gun registration;firearm registration
Gun Confiscation in Democratic Societies
New Zealand has had some form of firearms registration since 1921. In 1974, all revolvers lawfully held for personal security were confiscated. [SIZE=-1](Same source as previous paragraph)[/SIZE]
In May of 1995, Canada's Bill C-68 prohibited previously legal and registered small-caliber handguns. Current owners of such guns were "grandfathered," which means the guns are to be forfeited upon death of the owner. Bill C-68 also authorizes the Canadian government to enact future weapons prohibitions.
On 10 May 1996, Australia banned most semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns. Prior to this law, many Australian states and territories had firearms registration. Owners of these newly outlawed firearms were required to surrender them (with some monetary compensation). All such firearms are to be confiscated and destroyed after a 12-month amnesty program. Roughly 600,000 of an estimated 4 million Australian guns have been surrendered to authorities and destroyed.
"Since 1921, all lawfully-owned handguns in Great Britain are registered with the government, so handgun owners have little choice but to surrender their guns in exchange for payment according to government schedule...The handgun ban by no means has satiated the anti-gun appetite in Great Britain."[SIZE=-1] (All the Way Down the Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition in England and Some Lessons for Civil Liberties in America", Hamline Law Review, 1999) [/SIZE]
Even in the United States, registration has been used to outlaw and confiscate firearms. In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. [SIZE=-1](Same source as previous paragraph)[/SIZE] The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as "assault weapons." This was done despite the testimony of Police Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city. The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city. [SIZE=-1] (NRA/ILA Fact Sheet: Firearms Registration: New York City's Lesson)[/SIZE]
More recently, California revoked a grace period for the registration of certain rifles (SKS Sporters) and declared that any such weapons registered during that period were illegal. [SIZE=-1] (California Penal Code, Chapter 2.3, Roberti-Ross Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 section 12281(f) )[/SIZE] In addition, California has prohibited certain semi-automatic long-rifles and pistols. Those guns currently owned, must be registered, and upon the death of the owner, either surrendered or moved out of state. [SIZE=-1](FAQ #13 from the California DOJ Firearms Division Page)[/SIZE]

Krhazy said:

Well, the thread's been open an hour, and no anti-2nd amendment loon has done so. Didn't take long for conservatives to politicize the thread though, that was taken care of in the OP. So in the battle of hypocrisy, you guys appear to have won this time.

Click to expand...

Perhaps its due to the fact its nearly impossible for a law abiding citizen to legally obtain a firearm in NYC, so their weez needz to stricter gun control argument doesn't hold water.

jamesrage said:

Perhaps its due to the fact its nearly impossible for a law abiding citizen to legally obtain a firearm in NYC, so their weez needz to stricter gun control argument doesn't hold water.

Click to expand...

Same thing as when people bashed those who brought up the need for gun control after the Colorado shooting.

zstep18 said:

Same thing as when people bashed those who brought up the need for gun control after the Colorado shooting.

Click to expand...

Anyone with at least an ounce of common sense knows that criminals do not obey laws,so the idea we should restrict the law abiding is idiotic.

Another act of social terrorism and people still think guns, laws, or denial is the solution.

jamesrage said:

Perhaps its due to the fact its nearly impossible for a law abiding citizen to legally obtain a firearm in NYC, so their weez needz to stricter gun control argument doesn't hold water.

Click to expand...

Come on now, I know you are more intelligent than that. It may be difficult to obtain a gun in NYC, but it is easy to drive into the city after having obtained one elsewhere. And in any event, nobody ever claimed gun control would be fool-proof, only that it would decrease gun violence. NYC does have relatively low gun-crime per capita. You may disagree with the argument, but it is certainly a rational one that has not been disproven yet.

Chicago is another place where it is difficult to get guns. Yet the night before the shooting in NYC there were 15 murders in Chicago. There might be less gun violence, but there is certainly plenty of other violence. I always like to point out Kennesaw Georgia. Take a look at gun laws there along with crime rates. Interesting stuff. They have a nearly manditory gun ownership law (with exceptions for the mentally ill or people who just don' t want them) their law went in to effect in the 80s IIRC and over the next couple of years all kinds of crime was significantly reduced.

its difficult to get guns in NYC and a shooting happens. It easy to get a gun in Colorado and a shooting happens.

sorry whats the point trying to be made here?

jamesrage said:

Anyone with at least an ounce of common sense knows that criminals do not obey laws,so the idea we should restrict the law abiding is idiotic.

Click to expand...

I think it's better to err on the side of safety. Obviously, criminals in general aren't going to abide by gun control laws. However, if there is a fairly thorough screening process, it may prevent even a few unstable people from getting them and doing potentially bad things with them. I think that alone is worth it.