• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Thousand oaks shooting

ecco

Veteran Member
Well, that is one way to concede. I would have preferred you acknowledge that ypu got worked up over an irrelevant point, but we take what we can.
You see just a few, I see a six-fold rate.

Now you can argue that it was the gun regulation that decreased the number from 2 to 1, but i hardly think that is a large enough dataset to make any such claim.

Mass shootings in the US with no gun control, have increased in the past 20 years.
During that same period mass shootings in the UK with gun control, have have not increased at all, in fact they went down.
 
Last edited:

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Well, another mass shooting. Thousand Oaks, California. California has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.

Is there some reason why we keep producing mass murderers?
I haven't read the thread yet--I am presumably repeating what others have said here.

There is no reason to believe that Americans are under greater stress than are people in other countries, especially with respect to the mass shooters, who are almost exclusively white males, and many of whom are conspicuously privileged. I suspect one can only account for the enormous number of mass shootings in the US as due to a “perfect storm” of factors such as easy access to semiautomatic weapons, a culture that glorifies guns, an anti-intellectual male culture that promotes violence as an acceptable way to solve problems, and quite likely the high rate of consumption of exactly those psychiatric drugs that have been shown to be disproportionately associated with acts of violence. See: Prescription Drugs Associated with Reports of Violence Towards Others

The problem is worse than most Americans seem to recognize. According to an article in USA Today, the Thousand Oaks shooting was the 307th mass shooting in the US this year (as of the 311th day of the year), which have resulted in 328 deaths and 1,251 people injured: Thousand Oaks makes 307 mass shootings in 311 days
 

esmith

Veteran Member
So what is your point? That reasonable regulation and oversight wouldn't have stopped this particular killer? Are you thinking that if the legal regulation doesn't work 100% of the time then we shouldn't have any? Because no law I know of can stop us from breaking them 100% of the time.
Just what regulations/laws do you think the U.S. should add?
Please give the reason you think that this would stop anyone who wanted to basically go berserk and kill people. And no confiscation is not an option.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
I haven't read the thread yet--I am presumably repeating what others have said here.

There is no reason to believe that Americans are under greater stress than are people in other countries, especially with respect to the mass shooters, who are almost exclusively white males, and many of whom are conspicuously privileged. I suspect one can only account for the enormous number of mass shootings in the US as due to a “perfect storm” of factors such as easy access to semiautomatic weapons, a culture that glorifies guns, an anti-intellectual male culture that promotes violence as an acceptable way to solve problems, and quite likely the high rate of consumption of exactly those psychiatric drugs that have been shown to be disproportionately associated with acts of violence. See: Prescription Drugs Associated with Reports of Violence Towards Others

The problem is worse than most Americans seem to recognize. According to an article in USA Today, the Thousand Oaks shooting was the 307th mass shooting in the US this year (as of the 311th day of the year), which have resulted in 328 deaths and 1,251 people injured: Thousand Oaks makes 307 mass shootings in 311 days
Should we also count lack of accessibility to mental health, stigma of mental health issues, political division, echo chambers, access to media, media coverage.

Not sure how you can claim that the shooters are almost exclusively white males from privileged backgrounds, especially when the 307 figure includes gang related shootings and robberies which involved multiple killings and injuries.

But that is uet another tangent (maybe an important one to prevent more politicizing the issue).

I would also like to consider mass murderers who used other means besides guns. No doubt that ease of access to weapons does in part contribute so I am not taking away from ypur point about ease of access to guns. Just thinking about a larger picture also.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Just what regulations/laws do you think the U.S. should add?
Please give the reason you think that this would stop anyone who wanted to basically go berserk and kill people. And no confiscation is not an option.
We should have to get a license to be in possession or use of a firearm. To get that license, we should have to take a training course tailored to the type of firearms we intend to possess and use. That course should include our knowing the legalities of both the possession and use of firearms, and should involve testing both on our knowledge and our actual proficiency. If we cannot correctly judge or hit what we are aiming at, and do not know when it is legally and practically allowable to use a firearm, we should not be licensed to be in possession of one. Also, we should be vetted for our past behavior in terms of social responsibility because these are the best indicators of future behavior. No licenses for people who have a history of alcohol or drug use, people who have a history of violence and social altercation: brawlers, ragers, domestic abusers, stalkers, or other instances of mental and emotional instability. The license requirements should be universal in all states and territories, and should be stiffly enforced with fines, forfeiture, and even imprisonment if necessary, when disregarded.
 
Last edited:

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Should we also count lack of accessibility to mental health, stigma of mental health issues, political division, echo chambers, access to media, media coverage.

Not sure how you can claim that the shooters are almost exclusively white males from privileged backgrounds, especially when the 307 figure includes gang related shootings and robberies which involved multiple killings and injuries.
I said that mass shooters are almost exclusively white males, and that many are conspicuously privileged. I don't know how many might be or have been privileged. Perhaps I am wrong about them being almost exclusively white.

Anyway, unless the discussion about mass shooters is just an intellectual exercise, perhaps we should all seek to identify and make those changes that we as a society can make. I don't know to what degree mass shooters "lack accessibility to mental health" (whatever exactly that is supposed to mean). According to what I read, during an incident where police were called to his house, the Thousand Oaks shooter had recently been referred to a "mental health specialist," who decided that he did not need to be retained. Obviously one can't fault this "specialist" for being unable to predict the shooter's subsequent mass murder.

Obviously one of the most important things we as a society can do to address the issue of mass shooters is to seek limit access to semiautomatic weapons such as mass shooters seem to often use that can kill numerous people per minute.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
I said that mass shooters are almost exclusively white males, and that many are conspicuously privileged. I don't know how many might be or have been privileged. Perhaps I am wrong about them being almost exclusively white.

Anyway, unless the discussion about mass shooters is just an intellectual exercise, perhaps we should all seek to identify and make those changes that we as a society can make. I don't know to what degree mass shooters "lack accessibility to mental health" (whatever exactly that is supposed to mean). According to what I read, during an incident where police were called to his house, the Thousand Oaks shooter had recently been referred to a "mental health specialist," who decided that he did not need to be retained. Obviously one can't fault this "specialist" for being unable to predict the shooter's subsequent mass murder.
It means that we have a society where not everyone can afford to address mental health issues. I do not fault the specialist, but I also do not believe that there were no mental health issues present.
Obviously one of the most important things we as a society can do to address the issue of mass shooters is to seek limit access to semiautomatic weapons such as mass shooters seem to often use that can kill numerous people per minute.
I would say providing comprehensive universal healthcare is another obvious step. Removing the stigma of mental health issues is another.

Since we are including gang related mass shootings and escalating robberies I think addressing poverty concerns is another obvious step.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
You are the one claiming that gins are the problem. I am pushing back against you.

I wonder how many years we have been discussing and debating the deaths per day and mass-murders per year where guns were used?

And all through that time you have been 'pushing back'...

Against the common-sense of more effective gun controls we will hear about vehicle attacks and/or bombings in our countries, given as a reason why the US gun piles are so........ innocent.

I have yet to be told how many mass killings by poisoned sausage have occurred here, after all, you could have picked on the dreadful 'mass-murder-by-nurse' incidents here and around the World, of course? There, I'm even helping you to push away, because in the years since we started talking about all this, hundreds and hundreds of mass shootings have happened in the US, and thousands and thousands of single incidents, together with gun injuries (however caused) amounting to telephone numbers in quantity.

And in several years time I expect that you'll be pushing back.......
But you cannot hold back the tide of death caused by guns in the US, however hard you push. You might as well support better gun controls, and then wait ten - twenty years or more for any changes in your killing rates, because that's how long it will take for common sense gun controls to have any effect.

In the meantime we will think of the victims each time until they are submerged from our memories by the tide of deaths....
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
I wonder how many years we have been discussing and debating the deaths per day and mass-murders per year where guns were used?

And all through that time you have been 'pushing back'...

Against the common-sense of more effective gun controls we will hear about vehicle attacks and/or bombings in our countries, given as a reason why the US gun piles are so........ innocent.

I have yet to be told how many mass killings by poisoned sausage have occurred here, after all, you could have picked on the dreadful 'mass-murder-by-nurse' incidents here and around the World, of course? There, I'm even helping you to push away, because in the years since we started talking about all this, hundreds and hundreds of mass shootings have happened in the US, and thousands and thousands of single incidents, together with gun injuries (however caused) amounting to telephone numbers in quantity.

And in several years time I expect that you'll be pushing back.......
But you cannot hold back the tide of death caused by guns in the US, however hard you push. You might as well support better gun controls, and then wait ten - twenty years or more for any changes in your killing rates, because that's how long it will take for common sense gun controls to have any effect.

In the meantime we will think of the victims each time until they are submerged from our memories by the tide of deaths....
How poetic. If colorful and inspired prose were the arbiter of truth surely you would have me beat in spades.

But writing better does not equate to thinking better. What I am pushing back against is the intellectually lazy position that the problem is the guns. I will certainly agree that the ease of access has an effect on the type of killing and even a limited effect on the amount of killing, but this does not address my question. Why is the U.S. producing so many mass murderers. Sure it is probably tempting to say guns, but there is no good reason to accept this answer.

Critical thinking is required. And, you are certainly right that the deaths will continue to mount. The reason for this is not fpr want of gun control, rather for want of critical thought in addressing the issue.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
IYou might as well support better gun controls, and then wait ten - twenty years or more for any changes in your killing rates, because that's how long it will take for common sense gun controls to have any effect.
I disagree. It took less than a decade for new and more effective regulations regarding motor vehicle use to have a significant effect on the numbers of people being killed and maimed by their misuse. Safer vehicles, slower speeds, more comprehensive testing, and much stricter and uniformly enforced laws against impaired and irresponsible driving had a near immediate impact. And so would the same approach to firearm possession and use.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
We should have to get a license to be in possession or use of a firearm. To get that license, we should have to take a training course tailored to the type of firearms we intend to possess and use. That course should include our knowing the legalities of both the possession and use of firearms, and should involve testing both on our knowledge and our actual proficiency. If we cannot correctly judge or hit what we are aiming at, and do not know when it is legally and practically allowable to use a firearm, we should not be licensed to be in possession of one. Also, we should be vetted for our past behavior in terms of social responsibility because these are the best indicators of future behavior. No licenses for people who have a history of alcohol or drug use, people who have a history of violence and social altercation: brawlers, ragers, domestic abusers, stalkers, or other instances of mental and emotional instability. The license requirements should be universal in all states and territories, and should be stiffly enforced with fines, forfeiture, and even imprisonment if necessary, when disregarded.
So let me ask you a simple question.
How would a requirements, with your points, for having a license prevented the recent shooting in CA, be specific.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I disagree. It took less than a decade for new and more effective regulations regarding motor vehicle use to have a significant effect on the numbers of people being killed and maimed by their misuse. Safer vehicles, slower speeds, more comprehensive testing, and much stricter and uniformly enforced laws against impaired and irresponsible driving had a near immediate impact. And so would the same approach to firearm possession and use.
Wonderful news!
That's better than 10-20 years by far!
But obviously vehicles and guns are different, with different problems.
There are over 300,000,000 guns in the USA, I believe, and how many of these will have been scrapped within 10 years of 'better-controls' is unknown.

Hmmmm........ nah, I'll stick with ten to twenty years for any big differences to come about, but surely that would be worth waiting for, yes?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
So let me ask you a simple question.
How would a requirements, with your points, for having a license prevented the recent shooting in CA, be specific.
It might not have, but it would prevent a great many OTHER shootings by ensuring that the people who have access to and the right to possess firearms are educated and trained to do so, and that they have no history of social irresponsibility and instability. Why do you continue to overlook this very obvious point? Most of these mass killers have a history of mental problems and most other killers have a history of drug and alcohol abuse, violence, and general anti-social behavior. And we need to stop these people from gaining access to firearms when they are in their irresponsible mode because that's when they are killing other people. The only way to do that is to carefully regulate who we allow to have access to guns. Just like we regulate who has access to countless other forms of dangerous technology.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Wonderful news!
That's better than 10-20 years by far!
But obviously vehicles and guns are different, with different problems.
There are over 300,000,000 guns in the USA, I believe, and how many of these will have been scrapped within 10 years of 'better-controls' is unknown.
We can OWN all the guns we want. Just like we can own all the cars and airplanes we want. But we can't use them without being licensed and tested. And if we do, we will face serious legal repercussions.

When you can't have a gun in your house, your car, your luggage or on your person, and you can't fire one anywhere without a license, or you will face serious fines, forfeiture, or even prison, then many of those guns that are out there will become useless to the people who own them. The big fat profits to the gun manufacturers will dry up because used guns will be so cheap, and be everywhere. And our whole obsession with them will begin to wane. Meanwhile, those who really do want to have them can still have them, so long as they agree to get a license and maintain it.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
We can OWN all the guns we want. Just like we can own all the cars and airplanes we want. But we can't use them without being licensed and tested. And if we do, we will face serious legal repercussions.
OK......... and would you like to include 'All risks insurance' as a mandatory requirement as well? That would be even better.

When you can't have a gun in your house, your car, your luggage or on your person, and you can't fire one anywhere without a license, or you will face serious fines, forfeiture, or even prison, then many of those guns that are out there will become useless to the people who own them. The big fat profits to the gun manufacturers will dry up because used guns will be so cheap, and be everywhere. And our whole obsession with them will begin to wane. Meanwhile, those who really do want to have them can still have them, so long as they agree to get a license and maintain it.
Excellent idea! All you need to do now is see it through.
You forgot 'All party risks' insurance again.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
OK......... and would you like to include 'All risks insurance' as a mandatory requirement as well? That would be even better.
No, health care should be universal, and insurance against economic losses should be an individual's choice. Mandatory auto-insurance is BS. It's a scam perpetrated by the government on behalf of their pimps in the insurance industry.

The solutions are all easily found and implemented. We just won't get over of fetish for guns and our fantastic delusions of being the lone ranger, ready and able to meet out justice whenever and however we sees fit.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
It might not have, but it would prevent a great many OTHER shootings by ensuring that the people who have access to and the right to possess firearms are educated and trained to do so, and that they have no history of social irresponsibility and instability. Why do you continue to overlook this very obvious point? Most of these mass killers have a history of mental problems and most other killers have a history of drug and alcohol abuse, violence, and general anti-social behavior. And we need to stop these people from gaining access to firearms when they are in their irresponsible mode because that's when they are killing other people. The only way to do that is to carefully regulate who we allow to have access to guns. Just like we regulate who has access to countless other forms of dangerous technology.
That is only your opinion and can not be supported by "facts".
One must remember that it is our Constitutional Right to own a firearm and that right can only be removed by changing the Constitution or by legal means that does not infringe on that right.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
No, health care should be universal, and insurance against economic losses should be an individual's choice. Mandatory auto-insurance is BS. It's a scam perpetrated by the government on behalf of their pimps in the insurance industry.

The solutions are all easily found and implemented. We just won't get over of fetish for guns and our fantastic delusions of being the lone ranger, ready and able to meet out justice whenever and however we sees fit.

OK then, so you don't wish for or believe in Mandatory All Risks Insurance for all gun owners in the USA.

So, if a person with a gun happened to shoot you in the leg by accident (or on purpose) and you were out of work for weeks and in need of a lot of Hospital treatment, then you couldn't automatically claim for all costs, ongoing care, hospitalization and loss of wages from any Insurance company.

.... if that's what you want..... :shrug:

Moving on from that, can I ask., do you think that Mandatory Third Party risks for all vehicles driven on public roads is a good idea? I mean, if you don't think it's needed for guns, why for vehicles?

Come to think of it, if you slipped over on a shop's wet floor and broke your pelvis, should the shop keeper be insured?

Hell...... you could just dispose of all third party insurance altogether?

.....Not!!!!
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Define mass shooting.
The statistic I quoted is based on "mass shooting" being those shootings in which 4 or more persons were killed or injured in a single "spree".

I think the FBI has defined "mass shooting" as where 4 or more persons are killed in single "spree" (I don't think the word "spree" is used), which renders a noticeably lower rate.
 
Top