Report summary: Uh, yea, we do. He would have had to use a knife or machete or something that people can reasonably out run, and can use a piece of wood to block, and would have been able to throw...
Report summary:
while it will never be known if the gunman would have found another way to kill a large group of people if someone had taken his guns away,
Uh, yea, we do. He would have had to use a knife or machete or something that people can reasonably out run, and can use a piece of wood to block, and would have been able to throw stuff at the guy or use a broom to knock it out of his hands. Bombs and drones. If one could easily get their hands on stuff like that we'd see just as many bombings worldwide but no, it's just guns and blades nearly always almost all of the time.
Page 59 says the army reserve could have taken his guns away. So what about folks who aren't part of the army, which govt branch could take guns away from scary people having a psychotic episode? Maybe, perhaps, the entire government that governs every citizen????
What a tragedy, for the family of those 15 plus injury victims.
But I can't even scroll through the list of victims for just this year's mass shootings. I've gone to page 15 and it just keeps going. The first button on the top of the page is to export a CSV. A whole dang CSV.
You’re right it’s a total tragedy, because it was so clear that there was high potential for danger months in advance. The guy was crazy, and the country may as well be that it is so wedded to...
You’re right it’s a total tragedy, because it was so clear that there was high potential for danger months in advance. The guy was crazy, and the country may as well be that it is so wedded to firearms and so opposed to treating mental health in realistic terms, that again and again random groups are slaughtered while just going about their days— and that it could be either one of us or any of us today or tomorrow, yet the conversation always boils down to a couple simple ideas that are never implemented in any significant policy.
"now's not the time" ♾️ I wonder if they could get everyone to agree hey let's make guns an Elitist thing. If you hunt and or a farmer, you get guns. If you serve the country, you get guns. If you...
"now's not the time" ♾️
I wonder if they could get everyone to agree hey let's make guns an Elitist thing. If you hunt and or a farmer, you get guns. If you serve the country, you get guns. If you are an Olympic athlete you get guns. If you vote in federal, state and local elections 5 years in a row you get guns. Otherwise they're not Real Americans™ and don't deserve guns like the rest of you red-white-blue blooded Americans. Use the conservative mindset against them.....but I don't think so. I think gun supporters would sooner see ten times as many deaths and 100 times as many injuries before they'll let anybody take anybody else's guns.
haha, I kind of like this. but practically, that violates the 2nd and we'd have to have a real conversation about creating an amendment to address it. regretfully no politician would actually do a...
If you vote in federal, state and local elections 5 years in a row you get guns
haha, I kind of like this.
but practically, that violates the 2nd and we'd have to have a real conversation about creating an amendment to address it. regretfully no politician would actually do a thing like that because both sides get too much value out of talking about guns and they can't keep talking about them if they actually meaningfully resolved issues (see CA, no shortage of regulations that create endless headache for gun owners. but no meaningful reduction in mass shootings or gang violence).
not to be too contrarian, but driving vehicles through crowds is pretty effective and sadly we do see that happen worldwide. this case sounds like he needed more than just to have his guns taken...
He would have had to use a knife or machete or something that people can reasonably out run
not to be too contrarian, but driving vehicles through crowds is pretty effective and sadly we do see that happen worldwide.
this case sounds like he needed more than just to have his guns taken away, he probably needed to be hospitalized or put into medical care the same as anyone else with a permanent brain injury. it's sad that there were two separate authorities who had clean-cut ways to step in and intervene and neither did.
But you are being contrarian, and I think we should try and stay away from whataboutism. Not to mention a truck speeding down the street at 70M/h is still much easier to spot and potentially dodge...
But you are being contrarian, and I think we should try and stay away from whataboutism. Not to mention a truck speeding down the street at 70M/h is still much easier to spot and potentially dodge than a bullet.
I think it's reasonable to say that:
If guns were hard to acquire we will have less people dying because of guns.
If guns were hard to acquire, then during violent crimes we will have less people dying, period, assuming perpetrator has no access to more lethal weapons.
Anyone who works in security field will tell you that you need multiple layers of solutions when dealing with a complex problem, each layer targeted a certain aspect of the problem and hopefully contribute to a certain percentage of the overall solution, and combined together hopefully get you to an ideal state. So if we truly value human lives as a society there should be no reason not to start implementing gun control, instead of day dreaming about better mental health support that we may or may not see results from in 5 or 10 years.
The original comment is asserting that his firearms are the only way he could have done this mass-killing. It's not whataboutism to point out that other common, easily accessible means of...
The original comment is asserting that his firearms are the only way he could have done this mass-killing. It's not whataboutism to point out that other common, easily accessible means of mass-killing exist and that he isn't unlikely to have pursued one.
From a formal logic perspective, if an argument is structured as "there does not exist X therefore Y", then it's valid to prove the existence of X.
I meant contrarian to the implied shared sentiment that guns are bad and less access to guns would lead to fewer mass killings. Not contrarian to the specific argument presented.
While I do think we should have more firearm regulation and dislike much of the regulation we have now, my comment did not intend to assert any position on gun control.
We also have actual data. There is not some epidemic of vehicular murder in any developed nation that comes close to the level of per capita firearm homicides in the US, no matter whether you...
We also have actual data. There is not some epidemic of vehicular murder in any developed nation that comes close to the level of per capita firearm homicides in the US, no matter whether you slice it by 1-on-1 killings or spree killing incidents.
We can surmise two things from this. Either:
Access to guns enables spree killings.
Americans are particularly violent and prone to mass murder on a level unheard of in the rest of the world. In which case, we still should prevent them from having access to tools designed for killing.
Sure, I am not arguing that Americans are not particularly violent, I think it's a fair statement to say that we are. But that doesn't change anything. Sure if we can implement better education...
Sure, I am not arguing that Americans are not particularly violent, I think it's a fair statement to say that we are. But that doesn't change anything. Sure if we can implement better education and better mental health support, we can aim to become a better society in general, but these kinds of systemic changes won't come tomorrow. Even with successful education policy and mental health solutions we won't see results likely until a decade later. Why not consider solutions that will at least have SOME positive impact now?
Uh, I agree with you? Generally I'm less in favor of the "long term systemic" thing and more in favor of full abolition of firearm ownership. It should risk serious prison time to be caught with...
Uh, I agree with you? Generally I'm less in favor of the "long term systemic" thing and more in favor of full abolition of firearm ownership. It should risk serious prison time to be caught with one.
I'm elaborating on how the "contrarian" perspective is deeply illogical, because we have evidence that A is likely the variable that causes B...and even if an unknown C causes B, removing the A that makes it easy and worse is still the sensible thing to do.
I'm particularly close to the Lewiston incident too...I grew up visiting many bowling alleys in Maine for youth bowling, so I was kind of astonished that nobody I knew was a victim of that. After a stressful night waiting for further news.
Just another one on the list that people will sweep under the rug and pretend nothing can be done, like Vegas or Buffalo or Uvalde. I want to see full criminalization and federal task forces kicking in doors and arresting people after a generous amnesty period to turn in extant firearms.
Vehicles through crowds is an example I hadn't thought of, but no, it does not kill as effectively as guns. It's melee, just like knives or chainsaw (knives on a motor). A car can only kill in one...
Vehicles through crowds is an example I hadn't thought of, but no, it does not kill as effectively as guns. It's melee, just like knives or chainsaw (knives on a motor). A car can only kill in one direction at and given time (takes time to turn and accelerate), and you can safely evade it by being behind a piece of concrete or another car. Evading sideways away from it also gives a 50/50 chance of survival. Finally, the initial surprise is where it will claim the most victims, after which the numbers really go down. A vehicle cannot be effectively used to do lockdown standoffs, and a dude in a car is much easier for police/military to take out than a dude in a car with (yes) a gun.
Mass vehicular homicide is vanishingly rare because it's less effective than guns. Is there a wiki page per year or a database to download list of victims sort by month? Closest I can find is
To your othe point. Folks who have actually dealt with mental health will realise that you can't committ a person into a mental institution against their will permanently "just because" they're behaving weird or making threats or even after having hurt someone. They haven't been convicted of crime requiring life term imprisonment. The system is already filled to the brim and they're always evaluating to release as necessary. In this case the guy was in fact committed and was deemed less dangerous enough to be let out. Folks who struggle with mental health issues aren't uniformly sick: they have days where they do better, especially when they're in a calm environment with support and medication. Just like how you can't imprison every criminal for life, you can't commit a sick person for life either
I'm definitely not going to dispute that vehicle-ramming attacks are less deadly than guns, because that's true, but it absolutely isn't vanishingly rare, especially in countries where it's harder...
Mass vehicular homicide is vanishingly rare because it's less effective than guns.
I'm definitely not going to dispute that vehicle-ramming attacks are less deadly than guns, because that's true, but it absolutely isn't vanishingly rare, especially in countries where it's harder to get a gun than in the US. The top of the section in the wikipedia article that lists those seven incidents also links to List of vehicle-ramming attacks, which contains more than the seven notable attacks listed in the main article (and it separates attacks that were deemed motivated by terrorism from those that weren't, since vehicle-ramming is a popular terrorist tactic). Not all of these resulted in mass death, and the deadliest ones combined vehicle-ramming with use of other weapons, but they're certainly far from rare.
Imo it's not in good taste to try and downplay these incidents for rhetorical purposes. Yes, guns make mass death way easier and US gun control laws are abysmally loose. This guy also probably would've escalated to some type of violence (perhaps vehicle-ramming, perhaps something else) even if they took his guns unless he got some other help. But even in that scenario, he almost definitely would have killed fewer people without access to those guns.
I'm sorry if my tone is too flippant for this topic, I do apologize if that's the case. But it is not true that I'm downplaying ramming deaths just to make a point. It's horrible. But in...
I'm sorry if my tone is too flippant for this topic, I do apologize if that's the case. But it is not true that I'm downplaying ramming deaths just to make a point. It's horrible. But in comparison to the absolute atrocities that is mass gun shootings, one every few months really is rare, if you don't like vanishingly rare. I'm still in shock over how many there are in the United States this year alone. 9 car ramming deaths this year from the wiki link. How many this year from guns?
11 per wikipedia, but I didn't check if that differentiated the mindless-violence type from gang related. I think we're all well-meaning here and don't need compare and contrast the means of mass...
How many this year from guns?
11 per wikipedia, but I didn't check if that differentiated the mindless-violence type from gang related.
I think we're all well-meaning here and don't need compare and contrast the means of mass murder.
I just think the report is correct in that we can't be confident that restricting his access to firearms would have prevented a tragedy. Sure wouldn't have hurt though.
One could sensibly argue, as the person who began this comment chain did, that there would be far more vehicle-ramming incidents in the US if people did not have easy access to guns. One could...
One could sensibly argue, as the person who began this comment chain did, that there would be far more vehicle-ramming incidents in the US if people did not have easy access to guns. One could also still sensibly argue that it would be better in that case, due to how much less deadly vehicle-ramming incidents without guns are.
In addition to there being many more than those seven (ex: I searched for the 2017 Times Square attack as an illustration and Google gave me a different 2017 NYC ramming attack), they can be...
In addition to there being many more than those seven (ex: I searched for the 2017 Times Square attack as an illustration and Google gave me a different 2017 NYC ramming attack), they can be extremely effective:
On the evening of 14 July 2016, a 19-tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds of people celebrating Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people and the injury of 434 others.
Compare that to the deadliest gun shooting in the US (Las Vegas): 60 killed, 413+ injured by shooting/867 total injuries.
Yes, all it takes to stop a ramming is a bollard, but anytime large groups of people are somewhere that can't be permanently guarded by bollards, a ramming attack can be extremely effective and possibly harder to stop than a mass shooting.
They are relatively common, deadly, and possibly easier than a mass shooting.
For the record, that's not really a report summary so much as a quote from the panel chairman on the report. The report itself is worth a read, although 215 pages. As for this Orrr he could have...
For the record, that's not really a report summary so much as a quote from the panel chairman on the report.
The report itself is worth a read, although 215 pages.
As for this
Uh, yea, we do. He would have had to use a knife or machete or something that people can reasonably out run
Orrr he could have illegally acquired a gun and still shot people, which I believe is the point of the quote.
That we recursively take those guns away is my point though. Eventually the barrier to acquire a gun becomes hard enough that mass shootings don't happen on a weekly basis.
That we recursively take those guns away is my point though. Eventually the barrier to acquire a gun becomes hard enough that mass shootings don't happen on a weekly basis.
And they've had the same argument for things like the War on Drugs with less than stellar results. You will create a massive black market and be forced to heavily empower already controversial...
And they've had the same argument for things like the War on Drugs with less than stellar results.
You will create a massive black market and be forced to heavily empower already controversial police forces. You will quickly turn people who were legal gun owners into criminals and cause all sorts of problems.
If we could magically go back and enforce things from the start it'd be easier, but we have massive borders, guns everywhere in the country already, and serious issues with enforcement.
I'm not saying it isn't the way forward, but I don't think that it would prevent as much violence as people hope. If we're going to seriously pursue such a path people need to understand what that entails and what realistic expectations are. The kind of person who's about to kill strangers is probably not worried about adding "illegally got a gun" to their list of crimes. The only question is if they're able, and making that hard is a very difficult problem BEFORE you get into constitutional arguments and the court system.
Being forced to acquire a gun illegally will absolutely prevent guns someone already legally owns from being used in crimes of passion, though. In cases like this, where the shooter was severely...
Being forced to acquire a gun illegally will absolutely prevent guns someone already legally owns from being used in crimes of passion, though. In cases like this, where the shooter was severely mentally ill, it may not have been easy for him to acquire guns illegally anyway, and the degree of effort and time required to do so may well have been enough time for his mood to shift enough that he doesn't commit mass homicide. And that's not even touching on how many gun deaths are accidents. I think you're overestimating the percentage of gun violence that is due to calculated premeditation.
I'm really not, but this is one of the major problems with the larger discussion. This series of killings in Maine like most "mass shootings" (in quotes because that's a shaky term but for this...
I think you're overestimating the percentage of gun violence that is due to calculated premeditation.
I'm really not, but this is one of the major problems with the larger discussion.
This series of killings in Maine like most "mass shootings" (in quotes because that's a shaky term but for this discussion i'm assuming similar mass murder vs strangers situation) involved a fuckload of red flags and was committed with a semi automatic rifle. It was clearly premeditated.
Over 50% of gun violence is suicide (which I would argue is premeditated but obviously not really the point you're making). The remaining amount is mostly "heat of the moment" crimes of passion followed by some sort of crime (corner store robbery), and are overwhelmingly committed with handguns.
So in regards to the mass shooting events like Maine, yes a large majority of it is premeditated. In regards to overall gun violence, the overwhelmingly vaaaast majority of it is not. For the record accidental gun deaths are an extremely small % of the whole (50+% is suicide, 40+% is murder, less than 5% for everything else).
I mention the actual type of weapon used, because I find most legislation on the matter to be utterly performative rather than serious, as it's almost always targeting the ill defined "assault weapons" because it plays better in the media (in part due to the mental image it conjures of some gun culture bro and the mass shootings associated with them), but basically ignores that the overwhelming majority of gun violence is hand guns.
As for this:
Being forced to acquire a gun illegally will absolutely prevent guns someone already legally owns from being used in crimes of passion, though. In cases like this, where the shooter was severely mentally ill, it may not have been easy for him to acquire guns illegally anyway, and the degree of effort and time required to do so may well have been enough time for his mood to shift enough that he doesn't commit mass homicide.
To quote wikipedia, which has a very good summary of the linked report:
The report concluding that both police and the Army Reserve missed opportunities to prevent the tragedy.[103] The report found that Card's behavior provided sufficient evidence for the local sheriff's office to have obtained a "yellow flag" order to seize Card's guns in September 2023, yet failed to do so.[103] The report also concluded that the Army Reserves failed to provide appropriate healthcare for Card or to remove his access to weapons, even after a reservist sent a text message to an Army supervisor, saying, "I believe he [Card]'s going to snap and do a mass shooting."[103]
They literally had the ability to make it illegal for him to acquire a gun, to take the weapons he had, and make it harder for him to acquire a gun, and failed over and over and over again. So now the proposed solution is to make all guns illegal, and leave the same people enforcing it?
As an army reservist would he have been allowed a weapon? I'm damn sure the police and armed branches of the government will still be packing, so I would suspect yes. If so would this still have happened because they still would've ignored every single red flag?
So again, I don't really disagree, but I just don't think these points are all there is to this situation.
While I’m one of the more pro-gun members of Tildes, the reason they go for AWBs and not handgun bans is because they tried the latter already. Politically, it wasn’t great, the referendums in...
While I’m one of the more pro-gun members of Tildes, the reason they go for AWBs and not handgun bans is because they tried the latter already. Politically, it wasn’t great, the referendums in Massachusetts and California both failed, and they ended up only being passed in a handful of liberal cities (before ultimately being struck down nationwide in 2008/2010). Ultimately, one of the goals (in addition to the one of reducing mass shootings that are committed with modern rifles) is building momentum for further bans (I suspect if you asked top members of Giffords and Everytown they would be in favor of handgun bans), and they view AWBs as being he most feasible option politically right now (frankly, I disagree and believe that the high court will strike down AWBs as well in the next few years).
Suicide is definitely one of the things I was thinking about when I thought about "heat of the moment" gun deaths, since it's something where even small delays can really impact whether someone...
Suicide is definitely one of the things I was thinking about when I thought about "heat of the moment" gun deaths, since it's something where even small delays can really impact whether someone goes through with it. That's why some countries mandate selling pills in blister packs, because the time it takes to get out all the pills you need can be enough to dissuade you from actually attempting to take them all.
But yeah, the impression I get from this comment is that we disagree a lot less than I initially thought.
GPT summary: Timeline and Key Events Leading Up to October 25, 2023 May 2023: Initial Concerns About Robert Card’s Mental Health Colby Card’s Concerns: In early May 2023, Colby Card, Robert Card’s...
GPT summary:
Timeline and Key Events Leading Up to October 25, 2023
May 2023: Initial Concerns About Robert Card’s Mental Health
Colby Card’s Concerns: In early May 2023, Colby Card, Robert Card’s 17-year-old son, reported to his mother, Cara Lamb, that his father’s behavior had become increasingly erratic, paranoid, and angry. Robert Card believed people were talking about him, calling him gay and a pedophile, and accused Colby of being part of the supposed conspiracy. This behavior deeply concerned Colby, who then avoided spending time at his father’s home.
Involvement of Sagadahoc County Sheriff’s Office (SCSO): Cara Lamb, concerned for her son's safety and Robert Card's mental state, met with the school resource officer (SRO) at Colby’s school. The SRO contacted the SCSO, and Deputy Sheriff Chad Carleton took statements from Cara and Colby. Given Robert Card’s long service in the Army Reserve (AR), the decision was made to reach out to Card’s AR unit in Saco for help.
AR’s Initial Response: Deputy Carleton spoke with First Sgt. Kelvin Mote from the AR, who acknowledged behavioral changes in Card but was unaware of the severity. Mote indicated that the AR would try to help Card during an upcoming “battle assembly.” However, despite this assurance, there is no evidence that the AR took any action during the May or June assemblies to address Card’s mental health concerns.
June 2023: Escalation of Concerns
Family’s Continued Efforts: Card’s sister, Nicole Herling, continued to seek help, contacting the VA Crisis Line and researching resources online, but she struggled to find clear guidance. Herling left multiple messages for the AR unit in Saco but received no response. Herling’s efforts were driven by increasing worry as Card’s behavior worsened.
AR’s Inaction: Despite these concerns and the family’s outreach, there is no evidence that the AR took any steps to address Card’s declining mental state or to involve their Psychological Health Program (PHP).
July 2023: Active Duty and Hospitalization
Firearm Purchase: On July 6, 2023, Card legally purchased a .308 Ruger SFAR rifle and a 9mm Beretta pistol from a gun shop in Maine. At this time, Card had no criminal record or mental health commitment that would have prohibited the purchase.
Deployment to West Point: Card reported for his annual training at West Point on July 15, 2023. His behavior quickly raised alarms among fellow soldiers, particularly after he accused them of talking about him and exhibited aggressive behavior.
Psychiatric Evaluation: On July 16, 2023, after concerning incidents at West Point, including an aggressive outburst and refusal to open his hotel room door, Card was taken to Keller Army Community Hospital. There, he was diagnosed with “Unspecified Psychosis” and transferred to Four Winds Hospital for psychiatric care, where he remained until August 3, 2023.
August 2023: Discharge and Continued Deterioration
Discharge from Four Winds Hospital: Despite initial improvements, Card was discharged after 19 days. He agreed to take his medication and follow up with treatment but did neither.
Attempts to Purchase a Silencer: Two days after his discharge, Card attempted to purchase a silencer but was denied after mistakenly indicating on a federal form that he had been committed to a mental health institution. This denial angered Card, which he expressed to fellow soldiers and his brother.
AR’s Lack of Follow-up: Although Card’s commanders were informed of his discharge and the need to ensure his weapons were secured, they failed to take action. This includes not pursuing the recommendations to remove Card’s access to firearms and to keep him engaged with the AR unit for support.
September 2023: Continued Threats and Missed Opportunities
Escalating Behavior: On September 13, 2023, Card assaulted a friend while driving back from a casino. The friend reported the incident to AR leadership, but no action was taken.
SCSO’s Involvement: On September 15, 2023, after receiving a detailed narrative from Sgt. Mote about Card’s deteriorating mental state, the Ellsworth Police Department contacted the SCSO to request a welfare check on Card. However, SCSO Sgt. Aaron Skolfield downplayed the severity of the situation and did not pursue a yellow flag order, which could have led to the confiscation of Card’s firearms.
Key Findings and Criticisms
Missed Opportunities by Law Enforcement and the AR
Probable Cause for Yellow Flag Order: The report asserts that the SCSO had enough information to initiate a yellow flag order, which would have allowed them to take Card into protective custody and potentially remove his access to firearms. However, this action was not pursued.
AR Leadership Failures: The AR leadership, particularly Capt. Reamer, is criticized for failing to follow through on critical recommendations after Card’s hospitalization. These included ensuring Card’s weapons were secured and keeping him engaged with the unit. Their inaction is highlighted as a significant failure that may have contributed to the eventual tragedy.
Law Enforcement’s Response on October 25, 2023: The report notes that while the response was initially chaotic due to the unprecedented nature of the situation, law enforcement ultimately succeeded in locating Card without further loss of life. However, it recommends a full after-action review to assess and improve future responses.
Legal and Procedural Issues
Maine’s Yellow Flag Law: The report discusses how Maine’s yellow flag law was seen as cumbersome and inefficient, with only limited authority given to those who can initiate firearm restrictions. Despite these limitations, the report argues that SCSO had sufficient grounds to act but failed to do so.
Firearms Access and Mental Health: The report delves into the intersection of firearms access and mental health, particularly how existing laws failed to prevent Card, who exhibited clear signs of mental instability, from acquiring and retaining firearms. It points out that the system’s inefficiencies and lack of communication between agencies contributed to the tragedy.
Victim and Survivor Support
Dedication to Victims and Survivors: The report is dedicated to the memory of the 18 people killed and to the survivors who were either physically injured or traumatized by the events of October 25, 2023. It acknowledges the ongoing grief within the Lewiston community and highlights the heroic efforts of those who risked their lives to protect others during the shootings.
Resources for Emotional Support: The report lists multiple resources available for emotional support and trauma counseling, emphasizing the importance of community support in the healing process.
Report summary:
Uh, yea, we do. He would have had to use a knife or machete or something that people can reasonably out run, and can use a piece of wood to block, and would have been able to throw stuff at the guy or use a broom to knock it out of his hands. Bombs and drones. If one could easily get their hands on stuff like that we'd see just as many bombings worldwide but no, it's just guns and blades nearly always almost all of the time.
Page 59 says the army reserve could have taken his guns away. So what about folks who aren't part of the army, which govt branch could take guns away from scary people having a psychotic episode? Maybe, perhaps, the entire government that governs every citizen????
What a tragedy, for the family of those 15 plus injury victims.
But I can't even scroll through the list of victims for just this year's mass shootings. I've gone to page 15 and it just keeps going. The first button on the top of the page is to export a CSV. A whole dang CSV.
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting
This one guy insane, or the whole dang country insane?
You’re right it’s a total tragedy, because it was so clear that there was high potential for danger months in advance. The guy was crazy, and the country may as well be that it is so wedded to firearms and so opposed to treating mental health in realistic terms, that again and again random groups are slaughtered while just going about their days— and that it could be either one of us or any of us today or tomorrow, yet the conversation always boils down to a couple simple ideas that are never implemented in any significant policy.
"now's not the time" ♾️
I wonder if they could get everyone to agree hey let's make guns an Elitist thing. If you hunt and or a farmer, you get guns. If you serve the country, you get guns. If you are an Olympic athlete you get guns. If you vote in federal, state and local elections 5 years in a row you get guns. Otherwise they're not Real Americans™ and don't deserve guns like the rest of you red-white-blue blooded Americans. Use the conservative mindset against them.....but I don't think so. I think gun supporters would sooner see ten times as many deaths and 100 times as many injuries before they'll let anybody take anybody else's guns.
haha, I kind of like this.
but practically, that violates the 2nd and we'd have to have a real conversation about creating an amendment to address it. regretfully no politician would actually do a thing like that because both sides get too much value out of talking about guns and they can't keep talking about them if they actually meaningfully resolved issues (see CA, no shortage of regulations that create endless headache for gun owners. but no meaningful reduction in mass shootings or gang violence).
Yup. But "now's not the time" ♾️
not to be too contrarian, but driving vehicles through crowds is pretty effective and sadly we do see that happen worldwide.
this case sounds like he needed more than just to have his guns taken away, he probably needed to be hospitalized or put into medical care the same as anyone else with a permanent brain injury. it's sad that there were two separate authorities who had clean-cut ways to step in and intervene and neither did.
But you are being contrarian, and I think we should try and stay away from whataboutism. Not to mention a truck speeding down the street at 70M/h is still much easier to spot and potentially dodge than a bullet.
I think it's reasonable to say that:
Anyone who works in security field will tell you that you need multiple layers of solutions when dealing with a complex problem, each layer targeted a certain aspect of the problem and hopefully contribute to a certain percentage of the overall solution, and combined together hopefully get you to an ideal state. So if we truly value human lives as a society there should be no reason not to start implementing gun control, instead of day dreaming about better mental health support that we may or may not see results from in 5 or 10 years.
The original comment is asserting that his firearms are the only way he could have done this mass-killing. It's not whataboutism to point out that other common, easily accessible means of mass-killing exist and that he isn't unlikely to have pursued one.
From a formal logic perspective, if an argument is structured as "there does not exist X therefore Y", then it's valid to prove the existence of X.
I meant contrarian to the implied shared sentiment that guns are bad and less access to guns would lead to fewer mass killings. Not contrarian to the specific argument presented.
While I do think we should have more firearm regulation and dislike much of the regulation we have now, my comment did not intend to assert any position on gun control.
We also have actual data. There is not some epidemic of vehicular murder in any developed nation that comes close to the level of per capita firearm homicides in the US, no matter whether you slice it by 1-on-1 killings or spree killing incidents.
We can surmise two things from this. Either:
Sure, I am not arguing that Americans are not particularly violent, I think it's a fair statement to say that we are. But that doesn't change anything. Sure if we can implement better education and better mental health support, we can aim to become a better society in general, but these kinds of systemic changes won't come tomorrow. Even with successful education policy and mental health solutions we won't see results likely until a decade later. Why not consider solutions that will at least have SOME positive impact now?
Uh, I agree with you? Generally I'm less in favor of the "long term systemic" thing and more in favor of full abolition of firearm ownership. It should risk serious prison time to be caught with one.
I'm elaborating on how the "contrarian" perspective is deeply illogical, because we have evidence that A is likely the variable that causes B...and even if an unknown C causes B, removing the A that makes it easy and worse is still the sensible thing to do.
I'm particularly close to the Lewiston incident too...I grew up visiting many bowling alleys in Maine for youth bowling, so I was kind of astonished that nobody I knew was a victim of that. After a stressful night waiting for further news.
Just another one on the list that people will sweep under the rug and pretend nothing can be done, like Vegas or Buffalo or Uvalde. I want to see full criminalization and federal task forces kicking in doors and arresting people after a generous amnesty period to turn in extant firearms.
Vehicles through crowds is an example I hadn't thought of, but no, it does not kill as effectively as guns. It's melee, just like knives or chainsaw (knives on a motor). A car can only kill in one direction at and given time (takes time to turn and accelerate), and you can safely evade it by being behind a piece of concrete or another car. Evading sideways away from it also gives a 50/50 chance of survival. Finally, the initial surprise is where it will claim the most victims, after which the numbers really go down. A vehicle cannot be effectively used to do lockdown standoffs, and a dude in a car is much easier for police/military to take out than a dude in a car with (yes) a gun.
Mass vehicular homicide is vanishingly rare because it's less effective than guns. Is there a wiki page per year or a database to download list of victims sort by month? Closest I can find is
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack
It lists 7 incidents going back to 1973.
To your othe point. Folks who have actually dealt with mental health will realise that you can't committ a person into a mental institution against their will permanently "just because" they're behaving weird or making threats or even after having hurt someone. They haven't been convicted of crime requiring life term imprisonment. The system is already filled to the brim and they're always evaluating to release as necessary. In this case the guy was in fact committed and was deemed less dangerous enough to be let out. Folks who struggle with mental health issues aren't uniformly sick: they have days where they do better, especially when they're in a calm environment with support and medication. Just like how you can't imprison every criminal for life, you can't commit a sick person for life either
I'm definitely not going to dispute that vehicle-ramming attacks are less deadly than guns, because that's true, but it absolutely isn't vanishingly rare, especially in countries where it's harder to get a gun than in the US. The top of the section in the wikipedia article that lists those seven incidents also links to List of vehicle-ramming attacks, which contains more than the seven notable attacks listed in the main article (and it separates attacks that were deemed motivated by terrorism from those that weren't, since vehicle-ramming is a popular terrorist tactic). Not all of these resulted in mass death, and the deadliest ones combined vehicle-ramming with use of other weapons, but they're certainly far from rare.
Imo it's not in good taste to try and downplay these incidents for rhetorical purposes. Yes, guns make mass death way easier and US gun control laws are abysmally loose. This guy also probably would've escalated to some type of violence (perhaps vehicle-ramming, perhaps something else) even if they took his guns unless he got some other help. But even in that scenario, he almost definitely would have killed fewer people without access to those guns.
I'm sorry if my tone is too flippant for this topic, I do apologize if that's the case. But it is not true that I'm downplaying ramming deaths just to make a point. It's horrible. But in comparison to the absolute atrocities that is mass gun shootings, one every few months really is rare, if you don't like vanishingly rare. I'm still in shock over how many there are in the United States this year alone. 9 car ramming deaths this year from the wiki link. How many this year from guns?
11 per wikipedia, but I didn't check if that differentiated the mindless-violence type from gang related.
I think we're all well-meaning here and don't need compare and contrast the means of mass murder.
I just think the report is correct in that we can't be confident that restricting his access to firearms would have prevented a tragedy. Sure wouldn't have hurt though.
Agreed, wouldn't have hurt for sure. Thanks
One could sensibly argue, as the person who began this comment chain did, that there would be far more vehicle-ramming incidents in the US if people did not have easy access to guns. One could also still sensibly argue that it would be better in that case, due to how much less deadly vehicle-ramming incidents without guns are.
That is very sensible indeed, thank you
In addition to there being many more than those seven (ex: I searched for the 2017 Times Square attack as an illustration and Google gave me a different 2017 NYC ramming attack), they can be extremely effective:
Compare that to the deadliest gun shooting in the US (Las Vegas): 60 killed, 413+ injured by shooting/867 total injuries.
Yes, all it takes to stop a ramming is a bollard, but anytime large groups of people are somewhere that can't be permanently guarded by bollards, a ramming attack can be extremely effective and possibly harder to stop than a mass shooting.
They are relatively common, deadly, and possibly easier than a mass shooting.
A 19 tonne truck, mercy. I guess overall I'm severely lacking in imagination for how much damage some human beings are willing to do to others.....
For the record, that's not really a report summary so much as a quote from the panel chairman on the report.
The report itself is worth a read, although 215 pages.
As for this
Orrr he could have illegally acquired a gun and still shot people, which I believe is the point of the quote.
That we recursively take those guns away is my point though. Eventually the barrier to acquire a gun becomes hard enough that mass shootings don't happen on a weekly basis.
And they've had the same argument for things like the War on Drugs with less than stellar results.
You will create a massive black market and be forced to heavily empower already controversial police forces. You will quickly turn people who were legal gun owners into criminals and cause all sorts of problems.
If we could magically go back and enforce things from the start it'd be easier, but we have massive borders, guns everywhere in the country already, and serious issues with enforcement.
I'm not saying it isn't the way forward, but I don't think that it would prevent as much violence as people hope. If we're going to seriously pursue such a path people need to understand what that entails and what realistic expectations are. The kind of person who's about to kill strangers is probably not worried about adding "illegally got a gun" to their list of crimes. The only question is if they're able, and making that hard is a very difficult problem BEFORE you get into constitutional arguments and the court system.
Being forced to acquire a gun illegally will absolutely prevent guns someone already legally owns from being used in crimes of passion, though. In cases like this, where the shooter was severely mentally ill, it may not have been easy for him to acquire guns illegally anyway, and the degree of effort and time required to do so may well have been enough time for his mood to shift enough that he doesn't commit mass homicide. And that's not even touching on how many gun deaths are accidents. I think you're overestimating the percentage of gun violence that is due to calculated premeditation.
I'm really not, but this is one of the major problems with the larger discussion.
This series of killings in Maine like most "mass shootings" (in quotes because that's a shaky term but for this discussion i'm assuming similar mass murder vs strangers situation) involved a fuckload of red flags and was committed with a semi automatic rifle. It was clearly premeditated.
Over 50% of gun violence is suicide (which I would argue is premeditated but obviously not really the point you're making). The remaining amount is mostly "heat of the moment" crimes of passion followed by some sort of crime (corner store robbery), and are overwhelmingly committed with handguns.
So in regards to the mass shooting events like Maine, yes a large majority of it is premeditated. In regards to overall gun violence, the overwhelmingly vaaaast majority of it is not. For the record accidental gun deaths are an extremely small % of the whole (50+% is suicide, 40+% is murder, less than 5% for everything else).
I mention the actual type of weapon used, because I find most legislation on the matter to be utterly performative rather than serious, as it's almost always targeting the ill defined "assault weapons" because it plays better in the media (in part due to the mental image it conjures of some gun culture bro and the mass shootings associated with them), but basically ignores that the overwhelming majority of gun violence is hand guns.
As for this:
To quote wikipedia, which has a very good summary of the linked report:
They literally had the ability to make it illegal for him to acquire a gun, to take the weapons he had, and make it harder for him to acquire a gun, and failed over and over and over again. So now the proposed solution is to make all guns illegal, and leave the same people enforcing it?
As an army reservist would he have been allowed a weapon? I'm damn sure the police and armed branches of the government will still be packing, so I would suspect yes. If so would this still have happened because they still would've ignored every single red flag?
So again, I don't really disagree, but I just don't think these points are all there is to this situation.
While I’m one of the more pro-gun members of Tildes, the reason they go for AWBs and not handgun bans is because they tried the latter already. Politically, it wasn’t great, the referendums in Massachusetts and California both failed, and they ended up only being passed in a handful of liberal cities (before ultimately being struck down nationwide in 2008/2010). Ultimately, one of the goals (in addition to the one of reducing mass shootings that are committed with modern rifles) is building momentum for further bans (I suspect if you asked top members of Giffords and Everytown they would be in favor of handgun bans), and they view AWBs as being he most feasible option politically right now (frankly, I disagree and believe that the high court will strike down AWBs as well in the next few years).
Suicide is definitely one of the things I was thinking about when I thought about "heat of the moment" gun deaths, since it's something where even small delays can really impact whether someone goes through with it. That's why some countries mandate selling pills in blister packs, because the time it takes to get out all the pills you need can be enough to dissuade you from actually attempting to take them all.
But yeah, the impression I get from this comment is that we disagree a lot less than I initially thought.
GPT summary:
Timeline and Key Events Leading Up to October 25, 2023
May 2023: Initial Concerns About Robert Card’s Mental Health
June 2023: Escalation of Concerns
July 2023: Active Duty and Hospitalization
August 2023: Discharge and Continued Deterioration
September 2023: Continued Threats and Missed Opportunities
Key Findings and Criticisms
Legal and Procedural Issues
Maine’s Yellow Flag Law: The report discusses how Maine’s yellow flag law was seen as cumbersome and inefficient, with only limited authority given to those who can initiate firearm restrictions. Despite these limitations, the report argues that SCSO had sufficient grounds to act but failed to do so.
Firearms Access and Mental Health: The report delves into the intersection of firearms access and mental health, particularly how existing laws failed to prevent Card, who exhibited clear signs of mental instability, from acquiring and retaining firearms. It points out that the system’s inefficiencies and lack of communication between agencies contributed to the tragedy.
Victim and Survivor Support