[Discussion] Mass Shootings - Yeah, we need a thread just for this...

This year is the deadliest year ever in terms of mass shootings. In a political climate of polarization, it becomes harder to suss out legitimate information from the misinformation propagated by those with political agendas. Complicating this more is the continual resistance of 2nd amendment advocates to allow for political talk surrounding these massacres. This will involve political discussion to see if there are ways we can all agree might be good ways to prevent mass shootings.

This discussion should involve the details of any current, or future mass shooting, and how they compare to past mass shootings. How are they the same? How are they different? Do gun laws have an impact? Does the race of the shooter affect how we treat them? What makes one a hate crime and one an act or terrorism? Are these shootings the price of freedom?

I'm going to go ahead and say that the fact that "good guy with the gun" keeps getting shot by the police makes me doubt the effectiveness of carrying a firearm to prevent tragedies.

You know, just maybe.

Well he was black, so they probably would have shot him anyway.

Note that they regret the "misleading statement," not that they murdered a citizen.

Through college I worked in the mall where this shooting happened and one of my girlfriend's daughters was working across the street when this took place. It's still considered a "nice" part of town for the most part so it's not like people expect shootings there. When I was looking up local updates as to what happened it looks like while the police have admitted they shot and killed the wrong person the hunt for dirt has already begun. They're now saying that the guy they shot wasn't an active duty army officer as had been reported, he had actually been discharged, and that yeah, he may not have been the shooter they were looking for but he had "been involved" in the altercation. I'm sure more stuff will be found for people to point at to try to take away the "good guy with a gun" label.

I’ll be curious to see if he “was involved” in any capacity other than bullet catcher.

Kehama wrote:

When I was looking up local updates as to what happened it looks like while the police have admitted they shot and killed the wrong person the hunt for dirt has already begun. They're now saying that the guy they shot wasn't an active duty army officer as had been reported, he had actually been discharged, and that yeah, he may not have been the shooter they were looking for but he had "been involved" in the altercation. I'm sure more stuff will be found for people to point at to try to take away the "good guy with a gun" label.

I'm just piling on here, but unfortunately, I'm pretty sure for a lot of people, whether it's a conscious thought or not, he doesn't qualify for the "good guy with a gun" label because of his skin color. I mean, if black people should know better than to walk around with a hoodie on, they're surely going to have no sympathy for one carrying a gun.

gewy wrote:

I'm just piling on here, but unfortunately, I'm pretty sure for a lot of people, whether it's a conscious thought or not, he doesn't qualify for the "good guy with a gun" label because of his skin color. I mean, if black people should know better than to walk around with a hoodie on, they're surely going to have no sympathy for one carrying a gun.

Exactly this. A lot of gun controls laws were originally made with the intention of stripping them from minorities. The same way welfare and other social programs were made to help white people, but because they now help a lot of minorities, a lot of white people hate them.

BoogtehWoog wrote:
gewy wrote:

I'm just piling on here, but unfortunately, I'm pretty sure for a lot of people, whether it's a conscious thought or not, he doesn't qualify for the "good guy with a gun" label because of his skin color. I mean, if black people should know better than to walk around with a hoodie on, they're surely going to have no sympathy for one carrying a gun.

Exactly this. A lot of gun controls laws were originally made with the intention of stripping them from minorities. The same way welfare and other social programs were made to help white people, but because they now help a lot of minorities, a lot of white people hate them.

Ironically enough, the NRA was behind a lot of gun control laws, especially after presidential assassinations. Unfortunately they were taken over by hard line conservatives in the late 70s who were more concerned about political power than gun safety.

Kehama wrote:

When I was looking up local updates as to what happened it looks like while the police have admitted they shot and killed the wrong person the hunt for dirt has already begun. They're now saying that the guy they shot wasn't an active duty army officer as had been reported, he had actually been discharged, and that yeah, he may not have been the shooter they were looking for but he had "been involved" in the altercation. I'm sure more stuff will be found for people to point at to try to take away the "good guy with a gun" label.

The Hoover Police put out an update this morning. Outside of the typical police passive voice statements to downplay the fact one of theirs shot and killed an innocent person, they are now claiming that Bradford got shot for another reason.

Hoover Police wrote:

We can say with certainty Mr. Bradford brandished a gun during the seconds following the gunshots, which instantly heightened the sense of threat to approaching police officers responding to the chaotic scene.

When that statement drew questions they put out another one a few hours later:

Hoover Police wrote:

Earlier we stated that Mr. Bradford "brandished" a gun. To clarify, the word "brandish" was used because Mr. Bradford had a gun in his hand as officers responded to an active shooter situation between mall patrons."

Having something in your hand is only part of the definition of brandish. If just holding a firearm was brandishing then Roy Moore would have been arrested when he waved a gun around during one of his campaign rallies in 2016.

And that also conveniently leaves out the fact that other news sources have reported that "several shoppers were seen with their guns drawn" and yet weren't shot by the police.

I will lay you money that when this all shakes out we will find out that the actual shooter was white(I know shocking) and that he was one of the people brandishing weapons who was ignored by police because of his veil of whiteness.

There've been protests demanding that the police make public all bodycam footage from the shooting. Naturally the Hoover police have just shrugged and say it's out of their hands. They've handed all footage over to state investigators and they say it's up to the state as to what they feel should be released.

And yes, if there's a shooting anywhere in this area I can just imagine how many people pulled out their own guns in response to the sound of shots being fired. It'd look like a porcupine getting it's quills up. It just boggles my mind that the police can't even be bothered to shout "put the weapon down" before opening fire on someone.

I was talking to my girlfriend about this the other day (who I never talk politics or even current events with) and I mentioned that I felt the easiest thing they could do would be increase officer training at deescalating a situation and have "shoot to kill" be the last option rather than the first. Her response was that it was probably just a chaotic situation, the officer feared for his life, and that maybe the guy they shot matched the description of the shooter. I said yeah, they were probably just told a black guy had shot someone so he matched that amazing description and how is it understandable that an officer can kill someone if they feel threatened? Shouldn't the officer have actually BEEN threatened by this person before they opened fire on them? Not just the officer having a vague feeling that this guy MIGHT threaten them? The conversation didn't go well and just reinforced my belief that I should never discuss stuff like this with people face to face.

I think that's at the root of the police problem in america: The assumption that fear of threat is a valid justification for lethal force. Not actual threat, the fear of threat. If that weren't a valid justification, there would be less room for conscious and subconscious racism to drive these murders.

thrawn82 wrote:

I think that's at the root of the police problem in america: The assumption that fear of threat is a valid justification for lethal force. Not actual threat, the fear of threat. If that weren't a valid justification, there would be less room for conscious and subconscious racism to drive these murders.

There are way too many "root" problems with American policing to articulate.

thrawn82 wrote:

I think that's at the root of the police problem in america: The assumption that fear of threat is a valid justification for lethal force. Not actual threat, the fear of threat. If that weren't a valid justification, there would be less room for conscious and subconscious racism to drive these murders.

We also need to tackle the idea that non-instantaneous compliance to police orders--even when they're unclear or contradictory (or not even issued)--is also a valid justification for the use of lethal force.

Also guns are the problem.

sh*t doesn't happen in other countries even if their police are just as racist.

The main takeaway I'm getting from this horrible story is that more "good guys with guns" equals more suspects brandishing weapons when the cops show up.

Kehama wrote:

There've been protests demanding that the police make public all bodycam footage from the shooting. Naturally the Hoover police have just shrugged and say it's out of their hands. They've handed all footage over to state investigators and they say it's up to the state as to what they feel should be released.

And yes, if there's a shooting anywhere in this area I can just imagine how many people pulled out their own guns in response to the sound of shots being fired. It'd look like a porcupine getting it's quills up. It just boggles my mind that the police can't even be bothered to shout "put the weapon down" before opening fire on someone.

I was talking to my girlfriend about this the other day (who I never talk politics or even current events with) and I mentioned that I felt the easiest thing they could do would be increase officer training at deescalating a situation and have "shoot to kill" be the last option rather than the first. Her response was that it was probably just a chaotic situation, the officer feared for his life, and that maybe the guy they shot matched the description of the shooter. I said yeah, they were probably just told a black guy had shot someone so he matched that amazing description and how is it understandable that an officer can kill someone if they feel threatened? Shouldn't the officer have actually BEEN threatened by this person before they opened fire on them? Not just the officer having a vague feeling that this guy MIGHT threaten them? The conversation didn't go well and just reinforced my belief that I should never discuss stuff like this with people face to face.

Keep in mind that in the Middle East, when American troops (or any military force) is somewhere with people they **know** are trying to kill them, "shoot to kill" is well, well down the list of things to do in their rules of engagement.

Stele wrote:

Also guns are the problem.

sh*t doesn't happen in other countries even if their police are just as racist.

*cough*

What happens in countries where gun control is strict is ... people without guns still get shot by police in large numbers. It has a lot more to do with the police sub-culture in a particular country and their attitude toward crime and criminals. The core problem in the United States is the War on Drugs, both through its racist implementation and through gun control in response. The combination of those two things has taught generations of cops that almost every black man they encounter is an illegally-armed criminal threat. Now that legal gun ownership is growing in the black community and gun bans have been struck down in areas with large black populations, the police are running into situations they aren't used to handling - black gun owners operating in legal self-defense.

Rio de Jenaro, the capital of the country that just elected a president on the literal platform of "I am going to murder all the leftists, and bring back military dictatorship" has a problem with it's government and law enforcement murdering civilians. Weird. This definitely proves gun control doesn't work.

Aetius wrote:
Stele wrote:

Also guns are the problem.

sh*t doesn't happen in other countries even if their police are just as racist.

*cough*

What happens in countries where gun control is strict is ... people without guns still get shot by police in large numbers.

I am glad you qualified the above statement further on, because I live in Canada, which has some pretty strict gun control, and people without guns do not get shot by police in large numbers.

It has a lot more to do with the police sub-culture in a particular country and their attitude toward crime and criminals. The core problem in the United States is the War on Drugs, both through its racist implementation and through gun control in response. The combination of those two things has taught generations of cops that almost every black man they encounter is an illegally-armed criminal threat.
mudbunny wrote:

I am glad you qualified the above statement further on, because I live in Canada, which has some pretty strict gun control, and people without guns do not get shot by police in large numbers.

When cops shoot and kill somebody - whether they had a gun or not - it tends to generate news, sometimes national news.

thrawn82 wrote:

I think that's at the root of the police problem in america: The assumption that fear of threat is a valid justification for lethal force. Not actual threat, the fear of threat. If that weren't a valid justification, there would be less room for conscious and subconscious racism to drive these murders.

Yup- one line from the initial statement's been bothering me speaks exactly to that point: seeing Mr. Bradford with a gun "instantly heightened the sense of threat to approaching police officers". Well, so what? It's their job to handle things like that without blasting away. Right now the emphasis seems to be on "protect the officer" over "protect the public".

mudbunny wrote:

Keep in mind that in the Middle East, when American troops (or any military force) is somewhere with people they **know** are trying to kill them, "shoot to kill" is well, well down the list of things to do in their rules of engagement.

It's been mentioned here before, but a Marine combat veteran was fired from the police for not shooting a suspect: Lawsuit: Cop fired for not shooting armed suicidal suspect. He was using his de-escalation training to talk the guy down from 'suicide by cop', but when other cops arrived they immediately shot and killed the man.

A responsible gun owner was arrested in Huntington Beach, California yesterday. He owned a business that released doves at events.

He got into a payment dispute someone who had hired him for their son's funeral. The gun owner felt the best way to get paid was to increasingly threaten the former client, first saying that "maybe you need to go be with your son" and finally by leaving a voicemail that ended with the sound of him racking the slide on a handgun.

The police arrested the gun owner on charges of making a criminal threat. When they searched his home they found over 50 firearms, including many semi-automatic and bolt-action rifles, several handguns, and "lots of ammunition." A police spokesperson called the stash one of "the top 5 in terms of firepower" he's seen during his career.

The police noted that the law-abiding gun owner had only registered 12 of the firearms. The remaining 40 were unregistered.

The police also found Nazi and Confederate memorabilia in the gun owner's house and are investigating him for ties with known hate groups. Locals said that he was known as the neighborhood's "crazy guy" and that he had displayed Nazi flags in the windows of his home.

A police spokesperson commented "...my gut feeling tells me we did potentially stop something that could’ve been, I can’t even put into words what could’ve been forthcoming."

OG_slinger wrote:

A responsible gun owner was arrested in Huntington Beach, California yesterday. He owned a business that released doves at events.

He got into a payment dispute someone who had hired him for their son's funeral. The gun owner felt the best way to get paid was to increasingly threaten the former client, first saying that "maybe you need to go be with your son" and finally by leaving a voicemail that ended with the sound of him racking the slide on a handgun.

The police arrested the gun owner on charges of making a criminal threat. When they searched his home they found over 50 firearms, including many semi-automatic and bolt-action rifles, several handguns, and "lots of ammunition." A police spokesperson called the stash one of "the top 5 in terms of firepower" he's seen during his career.

The police noted that the law-abiding gun owner had only registered 12 of the firearms. The remaining 40 were unregistered.

The police also found Nazi and Confederate memorabilia in the gun owner's house and are investigating him for ties with known hate groups. Locals said that he was known as the neighborhood's "crazy guy" and that he had displayed Nazi flags in the windows of his home.

A police spokesperson commented "...my gut feeling tells me we did potentially stop something that could’ve been, I can’t even put into words what could’ve been forthcoming."

So he's almost literally the Nazi guy from Falling Down.

OG_slinger wrote:

A responsible gun owner was arrested in Huntington Beach, California yesterday. He owned a business that released doves at events.

He got into a payment dispute someone who had hired him for their son's funeral. The gun owner felt the best way to get paid was to increasingly threaten the former client, first saying that "maybe you need to go be with your son" and finally by leaving a voicemail that ended with the sound of him racking the slide on a handgun.

The police arrested the gun owner on charges of making a criminal threat. When they searched his home they found over 50 firearms, including many semi-automatic and bolt-action rifles, several handguns, and "lots of ammunition." A police spokesperson called the stash one of "the top 5 in terms of firepower" he's seen during his career.

The police noted that the law-abiding gun owner had only registered 12 of the firearms. The remaining 40 were unregistered.

The police also found Nazi and Confederate memorabilia in the gun owner's house and are investigating him for ties with known hate groups. Locals said that he was known as the neighborhood's "crazy guy" and that he had displayed Nazi flags in the windows of his home.

A police spokesperson commented "...my gut feeling tells me we did potentially stop something that could’ve been, I can’t even put into words what could’ve been forthcoming."

The words are, “mass,” and “murder.”

Not so much a good guy with a gun as a rebel without a cause

I reckon it must boil down to training and going on the beat where anyone and everyone might be packing heat.

Recently we had a lone wolf with a knife in Melbourne and eventually he was taken down by gunshot by a rookie officer shooting after failing to wrestle him into submission. It wasn't a case of opening fire immediately, they really tried to subdue him without firearms and did it after minutes without success.

I'm not suggesting police should be sitting ducks but rather the marine that got discharged for de-escalating could probably teach his ex-colleagues on how to save your own life without taking someone's life unnecessarily.

One of the things that bugs me in the defense of lethal force is the defense that "A person with a knife can from 20 feet away before a person with a gun can get a shot off". So, there's no answer other than killing that person with a knife, baseball bat, you name it. It is roughly accurate to claim that, but it applies to situations where the weapon needs to be drawn, aimed, and fired. If the officer already has his weapon out, finger near the trigger ready to fire, there is a lot more leeway to deescalate the situation rather than use lethal force as soon as they are twenty five or less feet away.

Clumber wrote:

One of the things that bugs me in the defense of lethal force is the defense that "A person with a knife can from 20 feet away before a person with a gun can get a shot off". So, there's no answer other than killing that person with a knife, baseball bat, you name it. It is roughly accurate to claim that, but it applies to situations where the weapon needs to be drawn, aimed, and fired. If the officer already has his weapon out, finger near the trigger ready to fire, there is a lot more leeway to deescalate the situation rather than use lethal force as soon as they are twenty five or less feet away.

It also assumes that the person with a knife has the intent and skill to kill. The refrain is that cops deal with extreme situations, but the more and more they murder citizens with cellphones, lie about it, and have others lie about it, the less and less I accept that.

Also obligatory: