Gunman vs Shooter
Duderonomy
Haut de la Garenne 7,793 Posts
So I noticed that the Briddish media always refers to these people as 'the gunman', while American media always calls them 'the shooter', and if the media's coverage wasn't obviously influential, the guy in Oregon apparently started his spree with the words "I am the shooter".
Think Charlie Brooker covered this best.
This was tough
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20735204
Think Charlie Brooker covered this best.
This was tough
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20735204
Comments
'Yeah, Something Like 1,000 Dead Kids,' Reports Spokesperson
May 25, 2012 | ISSUE 48???22 | More News
NRA officials said the school would have to be "super, super bloody" after the shooting for the organization to question their pro-gun stance.
FAIRFAX, VA???National Rifle Association Executive Vice President and CEO Wayne LaPierre said Monday that somewhere around 1,000 kids would have to die in a school shooting in order for the organization to reconsider their longstanding opposition to gun control.
"Yeah, that's probably the only way we'd reassess much of anything at this point: 1,000 dead kids, shot up pretty good, lying face down in the school auditorium or something like that," LaPierre said, noting that anything less than 1,000 dead kids would not be enough for the NRA to stop urging Congress to pass pro-gun legislation. "I mean, that's just a ballpark number, but I imagine seeing 1,000 or so body bags being wheeled out of a school and a whole town of crying parents would probably make us reflect on our values for at least a little bit."
"So yeah, more or less 1,000 dead kids," LaPierre added. "Something around there. And teachers don't count."
In his 21st year leading the right-wing lobbying group, LaPierre reiterated that "350 or 470 dead kids or some low number like that" would have no impact on the NRA's belief that there should be more firearms on college campuses or that concealed carry laws should be more lax.
Enlarge ImageIn order to reconsider their position on the Brady Bill, this amount of kids multiplied by 200 would have to be shot to death in school.
In addition, LaPierre added that while 800 dead kids in one school shooting would "certainly be a little closer to the number we're talking about here," ultimately that amount would, according to the NRA, constitute more of a society issue than a gun issue.
"For us to come anywhere close to reassessing our beliefs, it's gotta be one of those deals where a ton of kids get their heads blown off in school and there is one of those big, town-wide memorial services where they read off all the names of all the dead kids and you feel like, wow, that has to be somewhere around 1,000 names," said LaPierre, adding that seeing pictures of all the dead kids in front of the "pastor or whoever is doing the eulogies or whatever" might be a sobering enough visual for the NRA to reconsider whether it should be harder, not easier, to acquire firearms. "And I think the shooter would also have to use around 30 different types of guns in the shooting in order for us to rethink what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the Second Amendment."
The former member of the American Conservative Union's board of directors further qualified his statement, adding that the NRA's response to 1,000 or so kids being mowed down by a school shooter would more than likely vary based on the age of the students, the school's demographics, and the extenuating circumstances of the situation as a whole.
Though he didn't offer a reason why, LaPierre said 1,000 dead 14-year-olds is "not even close to the same thing" as 1,000 dead 18-year-olds.
"If we're talking about one of those big high schools with 4,000 students then 1,000 dead ones aren't really even a drop in the bucket, you know?" LaPierre said, explaining that if an uzi-carrying 16-year-old only kills 45 percent of a school's total population, the NRA would still be more inclined to blame the shooting on poor parenting, and wouldn't consider soft gun laws to be part of the problem. "Oh, and of course, if it's a giant state university or something like that then I'd imagine we'd need to see numbers closer to 8,000 dead kids before we really even begin to talk about potentially having a conversation about changing our philosophy."
"And for argument's sake, let's say it's a situation where 999 people die and the 1,000th person is just the school shooter blowing his brains out," LaPierre continued. "Do you honestly expect me to take that seriously? To me, that seems more like an isolated incident that shouldn't really impact everyone's rights, you know?"
While some believed that LaPierre's remarks finally indicated a slight loosening of the NRA's pro-gun stance, LaPierre was forced to clarify his comments after his membership criticized him for introducing the idea that a playground full of bullet-riddled dead kids might cause the NRA to reconsider their position on gun control if even for a second.
"At the end of the day, I want to make it very clear that the NRA is in absolutely no rush to change anything," LaPierre later said in a written statement. "One thousand dead kids would have very little impact on us. Now if 50,000 kids died in a school shooting that might be a different story. Something around 50,000 to 80,000 dead kids. You know what, forget that. Maybe something closer to 250,000. Yeah, 250,000 dead kids."
http://www.theonion.com/articles/nra-sets-1000-killed-in-school-shooting-as-amount,28352/
The old saying "To a man with a hammer in his hand, everything looks like a nail" springs to mind, but there are already so many hammers out there, I can't see how legislation would stop someone resigned to spending the last day of their lives from repeating something similar.
Collateral damage.
What 2nd Admendment advocates are too cowardly to admit. Every 2nd Admendment gun argument can be boiled down to "executed school children/ women/innocent bystanders are just the price of freedom". It is just that they will never admit that, although that is the basis of their argument.
The 2nd Admendment in no way guarantees the right to have a gun wherever you please just as the 21st Admendment does not guarantee one the right to drink a bottle of whiskey anywhere one wishes.
i'm going to watch the new bond movie at 7:30 though. that's cool, right?
Well, I guess I was trying to find a way of commenting on what happened* without turning it into another debate on gun control, or giving the sick psycho whatever kind of attention it is that they want or the attention that might provoke others to follow suit, and in a way not commenting directly on the event is a symptom of my growing numbness to these incidents.
That yootoob of Charlie Brooker says it all anyway.
Obama's speech brought some of it home though, even though I'm sure his detractors will be picking holes in it or him.
* and it turns out that an example was readily at hand to disprove my gunman/shooter observation anyway.
But srsly, what the shitting fuck. Wasn't even sure if the onion nra & handguns-at-head-law were spoofs.
RIP.
Hard to imagine how much worse this is for the family directly effected.
My guess is the quote above is inspired more by entertainment media (movie/tv/games) than by news media.
Amend it
yes I'm aware that might be a case of easier said than done
The risk of dying by gunshot has halved since Australia destroyed 700,000 privately owned firearms, according to a new study published today in the international research journal, Injury Prevention.
"Not only were Australia's post-Port Arthur gun laws followed by a decade in which the crime they were designed to reduce hasn't happened again, but we also saw a life-saving bonus: the decline in overall gun deaths accelerated to twice the rate seen before the new gun laws," says study lead author, Professor Simon Chapman.
"From 1996 to 2003, the total number of gun deaths each year fell from 521 to 289, suggesting that the removal of more than 700,000 guns was associated with a faster declining rate of gun suicide and gun homicide," said Adjunct Associate Professor Philip Alpers, also from the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney. "This was a milestone public health and safety issue, driven by an overwhelming swing in public opinion, and promptly delivered by governments."
After 112 people were shot dead in 11 mass shootings* in a decade, Australia collected and destroyed categories of firearms designed to kill many people quickly. In his immediate reaction to the Port Arthur massacre, Prime Minister John Howard said of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns: "There is no legitimate interest served in my view by the free availability in this country of weapons of this kind??? That is why we have proposed a comprehensive package of reforms designed to implement tougher, more effective and uniform gun laws."
As study co-author Philip Alpers points out: "The new legislation's first declared aim was to reduce the risk of similar gun massacres. In the 10?? years since the gun buy-back announcement, no mass shootings have occurred in Australia."
"On top of that, and despite the new gun laws not being designed to reduce gun suicide, domestic shootings, and the much less common 'stranger danger' individual gun homicides, firearm fatalities in the three largest categories - total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides - all at least doubled their previous rates of decline following the revised firearm legislation."
While the rates per 100,000 of total firearm deaths, firearm suicides and firearm homicides were already reducing by an average of 3 per cent each year until 1996, these average rates of decline doubled to 6 per centeach year (total gun death), and more than doubled to 7.4 per cent(gun suicide) and 7.5 per centeach year (gun homicide) following the introduction of new gun laws.
By 2002/03, Australia's rate of 0.27 firearm-related homicides per 100,000 population had dropped to one-fifteenth that of the United States.
The authors conclude that "The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."
*International definitions of "mass shooting" and "mass homicide" range from 3 to 5 victims killed. To exclude most spousal and family violence killings, a "mass shooting" is defined here as one in which five or more victims are shot dead in proximate events.
Waiting until the kids are in the ground is kind of the problem here, wouldn't you say?
Here are some facts for you: http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/23/six-facts-about-guns-violence-and-gun-control/
You are fucking kidding.
How many guns you got?
Yeah and doctors should really respect those who have just recently died from cancer before trying to treat cancer by not studying it, discussing it, or coming up with new ways to battle it because it is disrespectful to do so so soon.
Fact: 26 children, 7 adults executed with the coward's mother's legally purchased, legally registered assault weapons. What other facts do we need before we discuss it?
Ah, Gohmert. There's nothing he can't solve with prayer and some more guns.
The guy Gohmert is just dragging this into jokes territory.