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 was picturing more of the Ammo Bandito machine in Bioshock.
IT'S A CIRCUS OF VALUE!!!
The State Fair of Texas is banning firearms, drawing threats of legal action from Republican AG
DALLAS (AP) — The State Fair of Texas is laying down a new rule before millions of visitors flock through the gates for corn dogs, deep-fried delights and a friendly wave from a five-story cowboy named Big Tex: No guns allowed.
But that decision by fair organizers — which comes after a shooting last year on the 277-acre (112-hectare) fairgrounds in the heart of Dallas — has drawn outrage from Republican lawmakers, who in recent years have proudly expanded gun rights in Texas. On Wednesday, the state’s attorney general threatened a lawsuit unless the fair reversed course.
“Dallas has fifteen days to fix the issue,” Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement, “otherwise I will see them in court.”
Tensions over where and how gun owners can carry firearms in public are frequent in Texas, but the standoff with one of the state’s most beloved institutions has moved the fight onto unusual turf. The fair has not backed down since cowboy hat-wearing organizers announced the new policy at a news conference last week.
The fair, which reopens in September and lasts for nearly a month, dates back to 1886. In addition to a maze of midway games, car shows and the Texas Star Ferris wheel — one of the tallest in the U.S. — the fairgrounds are also home to the annual college football rivalry between the University of Texas and University of Oklahoma. And after Big Tex, the towering cowboy that greets fairgoers, went up in flames in 2012 due to an electrical short, the fair mascot was met with great fanfare upon its return.
But a shooting near the rows of food booths last year dampened the revelry.
Investigators said one man opened fire on another, injuring three people and resulting in police clearing the fairgrounds. Videos posted on social media showed groups of people running along sidewalks and climbing barriers as they fled.
Defending the new policy Wednesday, fair spokesperson Karissa Condoianis acknowledged it has attracted “both criticism and praise.” She noted that the fair previously allowed gun owners to carry concealed weapons “even after virtually all other public events ceased to allow the same.”
“This is the right decision moving forward to ensure a safe environment and family-friendly atmosphere,” Condoianis said.
Republicans lawmakers urged the fair to reconsider in a letter signed by more than 70 legislators, arguing that the ban made the fairgrounds less safe and was “anything but a celebration of Texas.”
In a separate letter to the City of Dallas, Paxton argued that the ban infringes on the rights of Texas gun owners. The city owns Fair Park, where the annual fair takes place; Paxton argued that gun owners can carry on property owned or leased by the government unless otherwise prohibited by state law.
A city spokesperson said in a statement Wednesday that they were reviewing Paxton’s letter “and will respond accordingly.”
Condoianis said Wednesday that the fair, which is a private, not-for-profit organization, “is not a government entity nor is it controlled by a government entity.” She said they are aware of Paxton’s letter to the city, and that it appears he’s “seeking clarification” on the city’s relationship with the fair and its use of Fair Park under the long-term lease agreement between the two parties.
Worlds collide, huh?
Slowest motion leopard face-bite in history.
Or we remember there's more people than just the presidential color of the state.
Cali has more Republicans than Texas and Texas has more Dems than like the next 5+ states or something.
Maybe people should have more voting power than square miles when it comes to national issues.
Thoughts and prayers.
Onion article about only place this happens.
Lawmakers do nothing.
I'm already bored of this one.
This is gonna take multiple days for us to get answers as to what happened and why this happened.
Why? It was a single person shooting up a school that was taken alive. In what universe, does it take multiple days to figure out what happened? Laziest f*ckers on the planet. They just refuse to do their f*cking job.
Sheriff wrote:This is gonna take multiple days for us to get answers as to what happened and why this happened.
Why? It was a single person shooting up a school that was taken alive. In what universe, does it take multiple days to figure out what happened? Laziest f*ckers on the planet. They just refuse to do their f*cking job.
Serious question - how do you propose answers are arrived at in < 24 hours?
Like how long do you think forensic analysis of bulletholes and casings to reconstruct the shooter's path and reconstruct when and where each bullet was fired from takes?
How long does it take to interview (i.e. gather eye-witness testimonies from) the massively traumatized victims?
How long does it take to find, review and log into evidence, the shooter's social media accounts?
How long after all that does it take to weave all those disparate items of evidence into a coherent narrative that you're certain is correct?
Frankly, doing it inside of a week is impressive as hell.
Sheriff wrote:This is gonna take multiple days for us to get answers as to what happened and why this happened.
I used to have the idea that we did this kind of "what happened" and "why" so we could prevent it from happening again. But we don't change anything.
There is honestly no reason except voyeurism to dig up all the details if there is going to be no change.
Like how long do you think forensic analysis of bulletholes and casings to reconstruct the shooter's path and reconstruct when and where each bullet was fired from takes?
How long does it take to interview (i.e. gather eye-witness testimonies from) the massively traumatized victims?
How long does it take to find, review and log into evidence, the shooter's social media accounts?
How long after all that does it take to weave all those disparate items of evidence into a coherent narrative that you're certain is correct?
Not disagreeing on the “immediate answers shouldn’t be expected” point, but the idea that cops regularly spend a lot of time and effort doing any of this stuff, or even doing it at all in many cases, is largely an invention of the TV crime procedural.
While I can be a bit more understanding when the shooter is killed instead of taken alive (as seems to be the case here), this should be pretty cut and dried. It's not like we can ever really understand why someone goes from 'regular' to 'mass murderer', so the information that is relavent to the news is: who the shooter is (name, age, gender, etc), who the victims were (likely just ages, since they will be mostly be minors), and where the weapon came from. None of that needs to take long with a living 'suspect'. If the suspected killer didn't actually kill everyone who saw them, identifying them positively should not be a day-long affair.
It is just emotion porn at this point.
While I can be a bit more understanding when the shooter is killed instead of taken alive (as seems to be the case here), this should be pretty cut and dried. It's not like we can ever really understand why someone goes from 'regular' to 'mass murderer', so the information that is relavent to the news is: who the shooter is (name, age, gender, etc), who the victims were (likely just ages, since they will be mostly be minors), and where the weapon came from. None of that needs to take long with a living 'suspect'. If the suspected killer didn't actually kill everyone who saw them, identifying them positively should not be a day-long affair.
Best practice is to NOT name the shooter. Don't make them into a hero for other shitbags and/or disturbed folk to emulate.
Atras wrote:While I can be a bit more understanding when the shooter is killed instead of taken alive (as seems to be the case here), this should be pretty cut and dried. It's not like we can ever really understand why someone goes from 'regular' to 'mass murderer', so the information that is relavent to the news is: who the shooter is (name, age, gender, etc), who the victims were (likely just ages, since they will be mostly be minors), and where the weapon came from. None of that needs to take long with a living 'suspect'. If the suspected killer didn't actually kill everyone who saw them, identifying them positively should not be a day-long affair.
Best practice is to NOT name the shooter. Don't make them into a hero for other shitbags and/or disturbed folk to emulate.
Fair point. Sounds like the shooter is also a minor, so even more reason to keep the name hidden. Don't want to ruin a person's life for some mistake they made when they were 14.
Fair point. Sounds like the shooter is also a minor, so even more reason to keep the name hidden. Don't want to ruin a person's life for some mistake they made when they were 14.
Ohh a minor. Now we can blame cell phones, video games, TikTok, and their parents (anything but guns)
Actually that is dumb - I know that not having access to guns wouldn't stop this kind of thing. People get depressed, they lose their sanity, etc. What it would do is drastically reduce the damage done by people during those episodes.
We've seen what happens in other countries where they have some level of control over who can get guns: sometimes someone stabs a bunch of people, someone drives a car into a crowd. It would be lovely if we could figure out why people lose all ability to try to do something other than hurt other people, but I would just be thrilled if we could cut down on how easy it is to kill someone. The second amendment was folly at the time they wrote it, and it's a cruel joke now.
We've seen what happens in other countries where they have some level of control over who can get guns: sometimes someone stabs a bunch of people, someone drives a car into a crowd.
In all fairness, that stuff also happens here, in addition to all the shootings.
Which is a strong argument for socialized mental health care, right? Right?
*tumbleweeds with American flags on*
The second amendment was folly at the time they wrote it, and it's a cruel joke now.
To be fair, the first revolver wasn't invented until the early 1800s. When the Constitution was written, "guns" were weapons that you only had one shot with and then had to reload by hand. The Founding Fathers had no concept of someone walking into a building and killing five or ten people before anyone could react, and they'd probably be appalled that we hadn't amended the Constitution to ban civilians from owning multi-shot killing machines over a hundred years ago.
But the founding fathers should have also used clearer language to differentiate between personal ownership of weapons or weapons used within a militia.
Serious question - how do you propose answers are arrived at in < 24 hours?
Atras' post is exactly what I was getting at. When the sole perpetrator is alive and in custody, it shouldn't take days to provide a basic rundown of what happened.
Jonman wrote:Serious question - how do you propose answers are arrived at in < 24 hours?
Atras' post is exactly what I was getting at. When the sole perpetrator is alive and in custody, it shouldn't take days to provide a basic rundown of what happened.
"shouldn't" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
What if the perpetrator has no interest in blabbing to the cops? Or a propensity for outlandish lying and/or self-aggrandizement? How long does it take to get to the truth then? Remember that one of the worst things the authorities can do in a situation like this is put out incorrect information. How long does it take to build sufficient confidence in the story, even with a co-operative perpetrator?
Just on the face of things, the perpetrator is someone not in their right mind. Why would having them in custody give you any reliable information?
Apparently the person in custody is 14 years old. So now I would really like to hear the story as to how a 14 y/o got firearms. I'm hoping the parents are held accountable (if appropriate).
Apparently the person in custody is 14 years old. So now I would really like to hear the story as to how a 14 y/o got firearms. I'm hoping the parents are held accountable (if appropriate).
That’s about the age I started having firearms gifted for birthdays & christmas, and I had minimally-supervised access to my father’s guns years before that.
I don’t know what the shooter’s background is like but a 14 year old with guns isn’t crazy in much of the US (I mean, it is crazy, it’s just not unusual).
That sounds absolutely bonkers but then I’m originally from Aus.
Pages