Recent Shooting and Discussion
- Thread starter Brute
- Start date
KSCRUDE
New member
Sharkey
Word Ninja
Yep, granny with a Glock is pretty likely to take out Billy Bob Crude the IV when he is wearing a Level III vest and chopping people down at random with his AK.
KSCRUDE
New member
If half of the adults in Walmart yesterday were packing a Glock, the death toll could of been way less. And the perp probably would of died before the police arrived!
Sent from my iPad using WAYALIFE mobile app
Sent from my iPad using WAYALIFE mobile app
Sharkey
Word Ninja
Absolutely, because I’m sure half the people in Walmart have the time and money to put a few hundred rounds downrange every week. They probably also all routinely take active shooter courses and are fully prepared to engage someone with a rifle. You are an idiot. Horsepower and “vacay” homes will never change that fact.
KSCRUDE
New member
I don’t lower my standards on this forum by calling other people names. But some of you in the WAYALIFE Mafia get off on it. Let’s do the math. CNN (FAKE NEWS) said there were 3000 people in the store. Let’s say half, probably less we’re minor children. That leaves 1500 adults. Let’s say half of them were armed. That’s 750 people to take on one perp. Not very good odds for the perp. Not very hard to hit a target 15 to 25 feet away in the back, or even the head. He would of been surrounded by armed people in every direction. It is what it is, and it will never stop. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy or woman with a gun. Do you have any better solutions? If you do, please let us know.
Sent from my iPad using WAYALIFE mobile app
KSCRUDE
New member
Speedy_RCW
Hooked
Just to play devils advocate here, let’s say 10% of those armed were in the vicinity to engage. You now have 75 people with guns drawn or firing. In the hysteria, how likely is it they all make good decisions and can identify the correct target? Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for carrying and 2A and all that. Just saying your argument with all that math kinda falls in on itself.
I’d like to think it would be the fact that there’s probably 750 armed people in that store, that dude woulda just said “ah fuck, it ain’t worth it” and went about his day like a normal human.
That’s all I got.
Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app
TheGrendel
Active Member
I don't know the answer. But, I do know that blaming the guns isn't going to solve any problems. It will make people feel good for a time. But, there is a massive problem going on this post-modern world. See this chart.
fiend
Caught the Bug
From this LA Times article. https://apple.news/ASWclPWeNQyqkVUGuyiHMIw
First, the vast majority of mass shooters in our study experienced early childhood trauma and exposure to violence at a young age. The nature of their exposure included parental suicide, physical or sexual abuse, neglect, domestic violence, and/or severe bullying. The trauma was often a precursor to mental health concerns, including depression, anxiety, thought disorders or suicidality.
Second, practically every mass shooter we studied had reached an identifiable crisis point in the weeks or months leading up to the shooting. They often had become angry and despondent because of a specific grievance. For workplace shooters, a change in job status was frequently the trigger. For shooters in other contexts, relationship rejection or loss often played a role. Such crises were, in many cases, communicated to others through a marked change in behavior, an expression of suicidal thoughts or plans, or specific threats of violence.
Third, most of the shooters had studied the actions of other shooters and sought validation for their motives. People in crisis have always existed. But in the age of 24-hour rolling news and social media, there are scripts to follow that promise notoriety in death. Societal fear and fascination with mass shootings partly drives the motivation to commit them. Hence, as we have seen in the last week, mass shootings tend to come in clusters. They are socially contagious. Perpetrators study other perpetrators and model their acts after previous shootings. Many areradicalized online in their search for validation from others that their will to murder is justified.
Fourth, the shooters all had the means to carry out their plans. Once someone decides life is no longer worth living and that murdering others would be a proper revenge, only means and opportunity stand in the way of another mass shooting. Is an appropriate shooting site accessible? Can the would-be shooter obtain firearms? In 80% of school shootings, perpetrators got their weapons from family members, according to our data. Workplace shooters tended to use handguns they legally owned. Other public shooters were more likely to acquire them illegally.
Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app
First, the vast majority of mass shooters in our study experienced early childhood trauma and exposure to violence at a young age. The nature of their exposure included parental suicide, physical or sexual abuse, neglect, domestic violence, and/or severe bullying. The trauma was often a precursor to mental health concerns, including depression, anxiety, thought disorders or suicidality.
Second, practically every mass shooter we studied had reached an identifiable crisis point in the weeks or months leading up to the shooting. They often had become angry and despondent because of a specific grievance. For workplace shooters, a change in job status was frequently the trigger. For shooters in other contexts, relationship rejection or loss often played a role. Such crises were, in many cases, communicated to others through a marked change in behavior, an expression of suicidal thoughts or plans, or specific threats of violence.
Third, most of the shooters had studied the actions of other shooters and sought validation for their motives. People in crisis have always existed. But in the age of 24-hour rolling news and social media, there are scripts to follow that promise notoriety in death. Societal fear and fascination with mass shootings partly drives the motivation to commit them. Hence, as we have seen in the last week, mass shootings tend to come in clusters. They are socially contagious. Perpetrators study other perpetrators and model their acts after previous shootings. Many areradicalized online in their search for validation from others that their will to murder is justified.
Fourth, the shooters all had the means to carry out their plans. Once someone decides life is no longer worth living and that murdering others would be a proper revenge, only means and opportunity stand in the way of another mass shooting. Is an appropriate shooting site accessible? Can the would-be shooter obtain firearms? In 80% of school shootings, perpetrators got their weapons from family members, according to our data. Workplace shooters tended to use handguns they legally owned. Other public shooters were more likely to acquire them illegally.
Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app
jesse3638
Hooked
This was my thought exactly. Hysterical people firing from all directions not to mention if they don't properly identify themselves when law enforcement shows up. At the Borderline Bar and Grill shooting, a deputy was killed by friendly fire, trained law enforcement. Couldn't imaging civilians with varying levels of training and mental fortitude shooting at the bad guy. Could it work? Maybe. However I feel the chance for a bad outcome is much greater.
Thanks for posting this. As mentioned a lot in here this seems to be the culprit behind these mass shootings. I feel realistically someone of sound mind who appreciates human life is not going to go decide one day "I think I'm going to go see how many people I can kill today". People suffer from all kinds of trauma and access to mental health professionals can be very difficult. Plus there can be a stigma behind talking to a therapist or psychiatrist. Also similar to addicts you can't force someone to get help if they themselves don't want help. I speak from personal experience on both these topics.
Sent from my 2PYB2 using WAYALIFE mobile app
WJCO
Meme King
So the news headlines this morning are filled with promoting 'stronger background checks.' That's all fine and dandy, but weren't these recent two shootings (along with other shootings) gunmen who purchased the guns legally? In other words, even with 'stronger background checks,' these same sick individuals can still get guns legally as there was nothing harmful found in their backgrounds :thinking: What in the world are 'stronger background checks' going to find? And as far as extending background checks to private party sells, do you really think all private gun sellers that have buyers with hard cash will go through the paperwork when the opportunity presents itself to sell the gun? I can't honestly see how stronger background checks would have prevented either of the recent shootings along with several others. All I see on the news this morning is politicians who want the population to perceive them as 'finally doing something' so then they can go back to their comfortable lifestyle until the next shooting occurs.
Sharkey
Word Ninja
Wrong. Estimates are that there were between 1000-3000 IN THE ENTIRE MALL, not inside the WalMart. Let's say there were 300 people in the WalMart (which would be a lot by the way) follow your "math" forward. That would make 150 adults, 75 of whom are armed. Are you seriously believing it would be a good idea for those 75 people to leave wherever they were in the store, actively seek out the shooter, and engage? How is each person to know whether the person they come across is the bad guy, working with the bad guy, or just another good guy? The reality is that, at most, one or two "good guys" would engage the bad guy and that is only if they were unlucky enough to have the bad guy confront them directly.
The thought of 75 armed civilians chasing down a guy with an AK in a supermarket and engaging him in a gun battle is, frankly, frightening. It's even more frightening when you add first responders to the mix.
JAGS
Hooked
First, I try very hard not to “see” my news.
So many people are quick to react and say XYZ won’t work. They said the same things about speed limits and seat belts too. They were wrong.
Background checks “ban” zero guns. Doesn’t seem like a hard thing to get on board with. My question is why wouldn’t we want the most strict of all background checks. In a real hurry for duck season with your semi auto?
WJCO
Meme King
Re-read my post. I don't think you did. I didn't say anything about banning guns. I simply asked questions.
JAGS
Hooked
Didn’t say did. But that is always the stickler word to prevent anything from happening.
You did question backgrounds. I’m just saying it doesn’t hurt. Why even question. Put them in place and let the data over the next decade tell us if anything worked.
They could very well save one innocent life from being taken. That life could be yours/your family’s. Is it not worth trying for them?
WJCO
Meme King
Have you ever purchased a gun? Just curious if you are already aware of what's involved in current background checks Federally? (I don't mean that in a condescending way. I'm seriously asking).
All I'm saying is how could they be stricter that would be preventative? What could be initiated now that would do any better than what's in place? Longer waiting times? Feds interviewing everyone's friends and family that are looking to purchase a gun? Drone monitoring of the individual for a week prior to purchase? I mean seriously, what's in place now already catches so much. Neither of these guys had anything in their background to prevent them from purchasing a legal weapon so stricter background checks would have yielded the same results. These were lunatics that didn't show up on the 'paperwork' radar.
Along with that, it amazes me that here in Colorado a gun can be purchased legally in about 30 minutes depending on how many people nationwide are attempting to purchase at the same time. Yet as a responsible gun owner, to get a Concealed Carry Permit, it takes several months of waiting, proof that you took a class, and 250 bucks. In contrast, someone with intent to act violently can purchase a gun legally (as long as nothing shows up in their background) and take lives in less than an hour even if they carry concealed (because the paperwork, waiting time, and fees don't concern them).
Last edited:
USMC Wrangler
New member
I’m not a highly educated man and as I previously posted, I do have my thoughts and feelings on this topic. I don’t know if I can articulate them in a way to be helpful in this conversation, on the internet. Most of these posts have been helpful to my simple mind in thinking through how to help.
I have a couple family members that have worked in the mental health world for decades. Those particular people believe the downfall of mental health care began 40+ years ago with the passage of certain laws, starting in California. Again, this is what they said to me independently through phone conversations with me recently. So I spent a little time, not a lot, looking into that. Two of the main things I found were the following...
http://www.lacourt.org/division/mentalhealth/MH0017.aspx
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/...the-us-bring-back-psychiatric-asylums/384838/
One of the things that jumped out to me most, right or wrong, was the last paragraph of the article linked above.
“The researchers acknowledge that implementing their proposal would be very costly. For now, it is just a suggestion, Sisti said. But perhaps it’s one worth considering.”
I’m certain people smarter than me have a better understanding what this initial cost would be. My thought is the monetary cost versus the value of life argument. Not to mention the cost of 1st responders, property damage, medical recovery of the wounded, etc.
Again, this is what’s bouncing around my head in the hope of helping with a solution. Maybe this post isn’t helpful at all. I don’t know.
I have a couple family members that have worked in the mental health world for decades. Those particular people believe the downfall of mental health care began 40+ years ago with the passage of certain laws, starting in California. Again, this is what they said to me independently through phone conversations with me recently. So I spent a little time, not a lot, looking into that. Two of the main things I found were the following...
http://www.lacourt.org/division/mentalhealth/MH0017.aspx
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/...the-us-bring-back-psychiatric-asylums/384838/
One of the things that jumped out to me most, right or wrong, was the last paragraph of the article linked above.
“The researchers acknowledge that implementing their proposal would be very costly. For now, it is just a suggestion, Sisti said. But perhaps it’s one worth considering.”
I’m certain people smarter than me have a better understanding what this initial cost would be. My thought is the monetary cost versus the value of life argument. Not to mention the cost of 1st responders, property damage, medical recovery of the wounded, etc.
Again, this is what’s bouncing around my head in the hope of helping with a solution. Maybe this post isn’t helpful at all. I don’t know.
Ddays
Hooked
Psychiatric background check requirement? You're not going to be able to catch these individuals without one.
In Pa it's scary easy to get a carry permit: Go to the County Sheriffs office and apply. Fill out a questionnaire, wait for the background check, sit in front of the camera, smile and violia, half hour or less and you're licensed to carry in PA.
Zero training whatsoever. Not even a classroom course, let alone any gun handling training sessions. Comforting, eh?
In Pa it's scary easy to get a carry permit: Go to the County Sheriffs office and apply. Fill out a questionnaire, wait for the background check, sit in front of the camera, smile and violia, half hour or less and you're licensed to carry in PA.
Zero training whatsoever. Not even a classroom course, let alone any gun handling training sessions. Comforting, eh?