Connecticut Massacre

Remove all ads!

Aldeth answered with what I would have said, with far more eloquence than I.

 

It was closer to 20 years ago actually (I know, it doesn't seem that long ago to me either). And actually, it has been topped since - 9/11 actually, but I'm choosing not to bring that into this discussion, as it's a different type of problem/threat.

Bombings are more rare, but they are also potentially far more destructive. It takes a lot of whacked out kids with guns to equal the destruction of a single OKC bombing:

Just because this happens less frequently, it happened. So again, BA's comment that there is "no weight" to the idea that without guns crazies can still use other weapons seems rather obtuse. I admit that guns are the more prevalent threat, but they aren't the only threat.


EDIT:
And who's to say that if ease of accessibility to guns is drastically reduced we won't see more "creative" attempts by people to become famous through mass murder. Many psychos in the US clearly have a love for dramatics, so without guns, many will just have to plan a bit more. Mind you, I'm NOT arguing against stricter gun control... I'm just trying to take in the bigger picture, and that includes looking at more than what has happened in the last few years, I believe.

 

Ok, I'll amend the phrase to 'little weight'. I think one of the main contributing factors to these mass shootings is the easy availability of firearms and the way they are commercialized and almost 'romanticized' in American culture. I don't think there's any way other weapons would ever go close to filling the void of 10k~ handgun killings a year in America, should laws and attitudes change there.

 

False. Via Google alone, I found many different bombings that have taken place in the U.s. over the last 20 years. Just last year three bombs detonated in mailrooms in Maryland.

1927 May 18: The Bath School disaster (bombings) killed 45 people and injured 58. Most of the victims were children in the second to sixth grades (7–12 years of age) attending the Bath Consolidated School. Their deaths constitute the deadliest act of mass murder in a school in U.S. history. The perpetrator was school board member Andrew Kehoe. Not quite on the same level, though.

The 1921 Tulsa race riots, however, may have been far worse. Reports from black eye-witnesses indicated that white law-enforcement personnel flew over the riots in airplanes and literally dropped Molotov cocktails and grenades on black protesters, causing up to 300 deaths. What happened, why, and by whom was supressed for a long time and even people in Oklahoma were not widely aware of what occured there until years later. The reality of what happened there is still contested, even by historians.

Just two examples of awful incidents that most people lack awareness of.

 

On the idea that a crazy, creative person can come up with an elaborate plan to commit mass murder - of course, that is a danger faced in any society and should never be taken lightly.

However - it completely misses the issue at hand. Building a bomb, for example, takes careful planning and resources. The more planning and resources involved, the more likely the plot is to be discovered and foiled. There are many steps involved in such an act. Your average "crazy" is far more likely to blow himself up or arouse suspicion than to actually carry out his plans. The decision to carry out such a plan must be sustained over long periods of time. And even if the bomb goes off, it has to be at the right place at the right time to guarantee casualties. If you miss with a bomb, you miss.

With assault weapons, there need be no plan. All there needs to be is availability and a split-second decision to on a rampage. Then there are only 2 steps: 1) get guns, and 2) start shooting. If you miss with an AR-15, just keep shooting.

That is what makes the availability of guns - in such quantities and of such power as are commonly found in the US - such an everpresent danger, and a far greater concern than creative crazies.

 

I think the phrase 'clutching at straws' could apply here. America has seen 62 mass shootings since 1982. Dragging up some bombings from 90 years ago probably doesn't really balance that out. I'm sure violence WOULD be caused by other means from time to time, but my argument is it would never come close.

 

OK, given that I live in Maryland, I read the news every day, and I usually watch the news at night, and I don't recall ANY of these bombings lead me to believe that there were not many (any?) casaulties associated with them. And by mailrooms do you mean post offices? It's not like people haven't tried to send bombs via mail before (unabomber).

Well, if we are willing to open a window up to events that occurred beyond the living memory of nearly everyone in the world, I imagine that there are tons of events we can come up with that would qualify as "awful incidents that most people lack awareness of." Also, when we're talking about the 1920s, I seriously doubt that there was widespread availablility of assault rifles with 30+ round clips available. I've seen movies portray use of tommy guns by the mob, but I have my doubts as to how prevalent they were. I certainly don't think there were millions owned by the US population.

OK, I know you didn't want to get into it, but I have a hard time envisioning the 9/11 tragedy as a "bombing". I suppose the planes exploded, but a commercial airliner is not a "bomb" by any conventional definition. Even if you're arguing the way it was used, it's more of a missile.

Bombings are more destructive, and much rarer than mass shootings. So much rarer, in fact, that there are, comparatively, a lot of whacked out people with guns so that they not only equal, but exceed the destruction of a single OKC bombing, if we add up the death toll from that point forward. Hell, even if all we look at is this year, we have 26 in this event, 2 in the mall last week, and a dozen more in Aurora this summer. We're already at nearly a quarter of the total of the OKC bombing, at that's one year. There was the Tuscon shooting last year, and just a few years earlier we had the VA Tech shooting, and that number probably doubles. I think if you look at mass shootings of the past 20 years, we'd easily pass the 168 of the OKC bombing.

That's the argument in two sentences. Get a gun = easy. Build a bomb = hard. It's because it's so easy that we see so many more of them than any other type of mass killing. I just looked up some records, and while over 150,000 people fail background checks for the purchase of firearms every year, nearly all of them fail due to having a felony conviction, or a conviction for assault or domestic abuse, even if it isn't of the felony variety. Fewer than 2% of all denied applications were because of mental illness. So basically, anyone without a criminal history can get a gun, and it requires very little effort on your part. Unless you're willing to put in a TON of time with research and procuring materials, with the willingness to risk blowing yourself up during the manufacturing process, you can't build a bomb.

 

Yeah, I'm definitely not interested in getting into the semantics here (just doesn't seem at all important given the gravity of the topic). I meant bomb as in something that "goes boom", which could include an exploding airplane by that broad definition.

I think, really, we're violently agreeing here. Let me again clarify that I'm not trying to make an argument that bombs are the greater threat. My argument is that guns aren't the only threat, and the only reason I brought up the OKC bombing was in reference to a comment that BA made, which he has since amended.

So while you're making good points, please be aware that I'm not actually trying to argue against any of them.

That said, regarding OKC it's not just the number of dead that should be considered here. 680 injured is a staggering number also, as are the property destruction figures. Guns still come out as the greater threat overall, without question, but damn, McVeigh's single bomb really wreaked a lot of devastation. And if he could do it, chances are so could someone else.

 

I'm not clutching at straws. There have been at least 9 bombings reported in the national-level media in the U.S. since 2000, none of which are related to 9-11. My suspicion is that there have been dozens more, maybe hundreds more, that simply haven't been reported through the national media.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States

Note that I don't consider wikipedia a particuarly authoritative source regarding...much of anything. But in this case it has the longest, most complete listing of terrorist attacks in the U.S.

 

People seem to maybe not forget but not pay much heed to the fact that Breivik detonated a major bomb outside government buildings in Oslo before he went to Utöya. That was his main plan, when it failed to kill as many people as he wished he went to plan B which is what we remember. He spent years planning for the bomb but managed to wreak ten times more havoc with what appears to be a reasonably impulsive decision to go to a youth rally and start shooting.

Terrorist spent years building bomb, managing to get it into place in a very central location, detonates it, kills eight people, injures 209 and crushes a whole lot of windows.

Terrorist disappointed with result of bombing puts on a police uniform, dons a firearm and goes on a rampage. Kills 69 people and injures 110 not to mention gaining world wide notoriety and his views heard by just about everyone.

I would say that if I were a terrorist I would totally go for the firearm rampage, way more bang for the buck.

 

You are correct, there were no casualties associated with those bombings in Maryland. They did make national news, however, and I distinctly remember when those Maryland bombings happened last winter.

You stated there had been no other bombings since the OKC bombings. Clearly there have been other bombings, and in your homestate, since then. Some have caused deaths if that is an important criteria to guaging the importance of terroristic acts.

Again, you stated you were not aware of any bombings on the magnitude of OKC, before or after it. This was a comment to your sweeping generalization.

I do not know if anyone on these boards is familiar enough with arms rules and regulations, or the Thompson company, in the 1920s, to make any qualified statements regarding the widespread availability of Thompson machine-guns in the 1920s. However, since they cost about $200 each at the time (when a Ford ran about $400) I concur and I also doubt they were widely distributed. There are indications their usage by the mob was widely oversensationalized, as well.

 

Yeah but... that's terrorism. I don't think situations like the one in this thread count as terrorism.

 

Some facts about gun violence:

According to a 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun during commission of the offense that landed them in prison, the source of the gun was from -a flea market or gun show 2%; a retail store or pawnshop 12%; family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source 80%.

Incidents involving a firearm represented 7% of the 5.1 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2008.

The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 68% of the 16,929 murders in 2007 were committed with firearms. Gun-related homicide is most prevalent among gangs and during the commission of felony crimes.

Homicide rates among 18- to 24-year-olds have declined since 1993, but remain higher than they were prior to the 1980s. In 2005, the 17 through 24 age group remains significantly overrepresented in violent crime statistics, particularly homicides involving firearms. In 2005, 17- through 19-year-olds were 4.3% of the overall population of the United States. This same age group accounted for 11.2% of those killed by firearm homicides.[34] This age group also accounted for 10.6% of all homicide offenses. The 20- through 24-year-old age group accounted for 7.1% of the population, while accounting for 22.5% of those killed by firearm homicides. The 20 through 24 age group also accounted for 17.7% of all homicide offenses.

People with a criminal record are also more likely to die as homicide victims. Between 1990 and 1994, 75% of all homicide victims age 21 and younger in the city of Boston had a prior criminal record. In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996. In Richmond, Virginia, the risk of gunshot injury is 22 times higher for those males involved with crime.


http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm
http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

People can talk about guns all day long. The problem isn't guns, in my mind. Why do Americans have such high rates of crime?

 

Now that is a whole other story - and a very valid point to raise. One can argue that the OKC bombing was an act of domestic terrorism. You could also argue that the actions of the Unabomber were an act of domestic terrorism. But a mass shooting, such as the ones that have happened this year, that do not seem to be motivated by any ideological/political/religious dogma (which to me is what differentiates a terrorist from a mass murderer even though they both kill numerous people) do NOT really qualify as domestic terrorism. The people committing the shootings are just whack-a-do.

 

Seriously? What else do you count mass shootings as?

Besides, who cares what the point of the violence was? I thought the point was that the violence was so awful that gun regulation is required? Perpetuator's goal, aside.

---------- Added 0 hours, 17 minutes and 2 seconds later... ----------

It was in my opinion. There seems to be some dissent from the U.S. legal community in calling him that and he was never charged with terrorism, however.

They were. The Unabomber himself claimed in his manifesto he would cease "terrorism" (his term) if the manifesto was published in its entirety.

We don't know that in most of these cases, because the shooters die at the scene.

What is terrorism? The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations identifies it as "...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." Which I think is a pretty good definition, but it's not the only official definition coming from the U.S. gov't (which, according to a study in 2003, had something like 100 active definitions).

According to the above definition, unless these shooters are saying they are killing people because they believe it will prevent aliens from invading earth or because Sam is whispering in their ear and telling them to do it, almost any other reason would constitute a "political" or "social" reason.

 

Let's not forget modern laws against making terrorist threats, which in my state was once famously done by and prosecuted against a guy found sleeping in a truck on the side of a country road at night, if memory serves. Then there's also Andrew Osantowski, who was paroled not too long ago. http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/11/michigan_supreme_court_grants.html

The law:

Terrorism defined:

It still seems a bit nebulous and it might be doubtful that this Lazlo guy or whatever his name was was trying to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population" specifically (not to mention the law is no doubt different in Connecticut), but apparently it worked fort the Osantowski kid.

 

For me, terrorism is an act with an end goal in mind. Most often political. Not every murder is an act of terrorism... murder is murder, terrorism is terrorism, even when on a mass scale. This was the actions of a deranged idiot, not a planned hit by Al Qaeda. However, to argue that is just semantics. I think you know what we're saying.

It's easy to get caught up in all the different facets and different viewpoints in this argument. The bottom line is that too many people die in the US as a result of firearms, and there are an inordinate amount of mass shootings. You musn't lose sight of that when getting caught up in the discussion, and it needs to change.

 

Re: terrorism vs. not terrorism

If your child or other loved one is killed, they'll be just as dead either way. I'm not sure why this distinction is entirely relevant. Ultimately we just don't want people murdering our friends, loved ones, and neighbors.

 

I'm just going to hop back in to reply to this:

Yes, this is the problem that we need to address here, in the incident we are discussing, he got his weapon from his mother, he didn't buy it himself through a legal channel. Many weapons are getting into the hands of those who would use them from legitimate buyers of the weapons. Therefore the best option being that noone can own a gun unless they can show real need for it (e.g. farmers to protect livestock).

 

My opinion is that people don't die as a result of firearms. They die as a result of people who make a series of bad decisions--often on each side of the barrel. Or they could frankly be good decisions, the point is that it's someone's finger on the trigger. Studies indicate that in the U.S., the majority of the victims of gun violence incidents are individuals with criminal backgrounds--which means the vast majority of gun violence in this country is between criminals. In many of these mass-murders incidents, from what we know, the killers are often mentally ill. In Colorado, at least, authorities knew the shooter was mentally ill and apparently warned officials, to no real effect. Do we have more violent, crazy people out there now? Why? How does society identify and protect themselves from people who display abberant psychology? Especially if communities don't even know about these people in their community? Those are also important issues and in my mind are far more important than how many handguns exist.

I am not certain there are an inordinate amount of mass shootings in the U.S., as awful as they are. Considering dynamics of a huge population (people, especially non-U.S. citizens, seem to forget the U.S. is the third biggest country on the globe), industrialization, globalization, a long history of resistance to state control by all sorts of minorities (including an extremely bloody, centuries-long effort by the U.S. military to crush the Indian nations), vast bureaucracies developed to manage wide areas of human life, large and lucrative criminal enterprises deep in our cities, heartlands, and border areas, a basic education system that seems lacking in terms of developing work ethic, discipline, or critical thinking skills, a Constitution which guarantees the protection of an armed populace, a population historically dependent on immigration (though much less so in the 20th century--and is that a problem?), an academic and media environment which is free to explore any topic (no matter how critical of the state, society, social groups, or individuals it may be), what seems like a medical culture of over-prescription, a market economy that almost ruthlessly results in wide disparity in earnings, the "corporatization of America" and high divorce rates (I'd argue these are related), a long history of reluctant societal integration (people talk about civil rights for African-Americans in the 1950s & 60s, but women couldn't even vote in the U.S. a mere century ago, and homosexuals were kicked out of the military for being gay just 2 years ago), a history of a celebration of individuality, a violence-saturated media market (jeesh, how many point-and-shoot games has a typical 15-year-old kid played by that point in his life?), and rapidly changing demographic trends, it is realistic to see LOTS of friction in U.S. society. People just aren't going to get along all the time and conflict happens--is even celebrated. It's overly simplistic and unrealistic to blame mass-murder events on the mere existence of guns.

Correllations can be wide or specific or direct or indirect, but there is a lot more to it than just saying it's about how many guns there are out there. Comparing the U.S. to other places like Switzerland, Germany, or Denmark, extrapolating for population size, and expecting to come up with some sort of meaningful comparison is dangerous. I haven't really seen any wide-scale, credible, meaningful studies that attempt to look at how this stuff figures in to how people think in the U.S.--but I have no doubt this stuff matters--and how people think is reflected in how they act. All countries are different from each other, some more than others, but the U.S. is very different from most.

Now the talking heads on TV seem to be widely favor of legislating away guns in order to "do something" about Connecticut. And I fail to see how increased weapons legislation would have done anything about that kid stealing those weapons and getting into the school and killing those kids and teachers. Not that I'm particularly in favor of more guns, or less legislation, and I'm never in favor (in almost any case of anything happening anywhere) of simply doing nothing. But I'm definitely in favor of analyzing the situation, seeing what the real problem is, working out an effective solution, and implementing that--rather than doing something that doesn't get after the problem and will likely cause other problems of different sorts.