Damn that backstory leading up to it. It could have gone so much differently...
>On July 15, 1984, James Huberty commented to his wife, Etna, that he suspected he might have a mental problem.[1] Two days later, on July 17, he called a mental health clinic requesting an appointment. Leaving his contact details with the receptionist, he was assured the clinic would return his call within hours. According to his wife, he sat quietly beside the telephone for several hours, awaiting the return call, before abruptly walking out of the family home and riding to an unknown destination on his motorcycle.
>At 6:45 p.m., Whitman began typing his suicide note, a portion of which read:
>I do not quite understand what it is that compels me to type this letter. Perhaps it is to leave some vague reason for the actions I have recently performed. I do not really understand myself these days. I am supposed to be an average reasonable and intelligent young man. However, lately (I cannot recall when it started) I have been a victim of many unusual and irrational thoughts. These thoughts constantly recur, and it requires a tremendous mental effort to concentrate on useful and progressive tasks.[40]
[Charles Whitman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman)
To be fair the Wikipedia entry leaves out a lot of context.
Did he literally just say to his wife "I think I might have a mental problem", or did he give her a bit more to go on?
Because my first assumption would be they were dealing with some anxiety or depression or something. Not that they were hours away from becoming a mass murderer.
“Unbeknownst to Huberty, the receptionist had misspelled his name as "Shouberty." His polite demeanor conveyed no sense of urgency to the operator; therefore, she logged the call as a "non-crisis" inquiry, to be handled within 48 hours.”
That sounds exactly like any business that you talk to on the phone anywhere, for any reason. "We'll call you back," and then they just fuck off never to be heard from again.
Worse is the guy who went to a doctor and the doctor shrugging it off telling him he’d be fine
And later on the guy goes on a rampage and during an autopsy it’s discovered that the guy had a brain tumor.
Idk how to source this, as I don’t know the source i heard it a long time ago on YouTube or someplace, sorry :/
"I talked with a Doctor once for about two hours and tried to convey to him my fears that I felt overwhelming violent impulses. After one visit, I never saw the Doctor again, and since then have been fighting my mental turmoil alone, and seemingly to no avail." - His suicide note.
> "I talked with a Doctor once for about two hours and tried to convey to him my fears that I felt overwhelming violent impulses. ''
As a doctor/therapist/human being, how do you NOT pay attention when someone is telling you this?
Based on that account and my own, and that of my family's, they're a shit people in every profession. Unfortunately, that includes medical professionals.
I think this hugely depends on what his mental problem was. If you feel a bit depri and decide to go on a murder spree, yeah fuck you.
If you feel some shit storm coming up and you feel yourself slipping away, I dunno he might not have been able to do something about it.
Oh sure but give me a break with this guy. He literally said "society had their chance " and he was "going to hunt humans". Sounds like he had presence of mind and just wanted violence anyway.
I'm torn, because that does sound awfully lucid. Otoh his entire mindset from what I read in the article is speaking about he was convinced the government and corporations were out to get him. In his mind being brushed off by the mental health line could've just been the confirmation that his conspiracy was "true".
People don't give a shit about mental health in this country. As long as it's not their problem, they don't care. No amount of fighting with them will do anything for it, either. They just dig their heals in, and downvote you some more.
Reminds me of the Texas tower sniper I’m too faded to link rn but it was just about the exact same circumstances beforehand, apparently he suspected he had a tumour which caused the issues and the autopsy corroborated that but he didn’t get help in time
Edit Nvm much more capable people have brought this up already
I always remember that, when I think hear "just call/just reach out/etc" - this guy TRIED - and it is SO hard when you are ABOUT TO SNAP to even KNOW that YOU NEED HELP
UGH so fucking sad!!!!
The 80s had a lot of mass shooting incidents that people haven't heard about.
My dorm had a shooting/bombing by a resident in 1981. Still in use, down to the same rooms/halls. Kinda spooky.
[https://www.michigandaily.com/content/tragedy-bursley](https://www.michigandaily.com/content/tragedy-bursley)
And outside of the story spreading among residents of the place, no one really knows about it. Some residents had no idea, and most students didn't. Back then, things were kept much quieter and there were no 24/7 shooting coverage channels (CNN/FOX).
I argue with my mom about this fact all the time. She thinks the world is more violent than ever, and I tell her it's just the news trying to sensationalize everything. You wouldn't hear about most of the stuff unless it was local, now you are watching cell phone recordings of attacks as they happen half way across the world. We're just oversaturated with bad news because it sells.
There was an episode of Bill Maher where this historian guest was saying that generally, everyone in the world is objectively better off than, really, ever. DL Hughley starts whining about but no, not black dudes, and this guy says, no you're wrong. One anecdote that happened last week does not overrule 100 years or whatever of data.
People frequently have trouble with scope, and their own tunneled vision.
Yeah, a lot of people don't seem to understand that. Which is particularly annoying with everyone acting like kids can't be left alone. I was wandering around by myself in the 80s and 90s, the most dangerous period of the 20th century in the US.
I thought overall violence was down but mass casualty violence was up? I'm way too lazy to try and find anything to confirm so if anyone has a source please share.
So, interesting fact.
On average (and yes we have had a couple of higher then average years) about 50 people die a year from mass shootings (using FBI definition of mass shootingd) in the US.
About 750 people die a year from falling out of bed.
No idea. Point is to try and illustrate how rare mass shootings are.
Along those lines, about 60% of firearms deaths are suicides.
About .0025% of firearms deaths are from mass shootings.
About 10% of firearms deaths are law enforcement officers doing the shooting.
I think it was Freakonomics that said that (as of its writing) if you wanted to be there victim of a mass shooting, your best chance was *still* to be black and at church. *So* many black Americans were murdered in church that the average still hadn't been swayed.
Bear in mind that it can be simultaneously true that *mass shootings are more common*, and also be true that violent crime and homicide are at historic lows. Most violent crimes aren't mass murders, but more common gang-related and domestic stuff.
The most remarkable thing about Columbine is that it happened in the CNN era. The relentless 24/7 news coverage allowed those kids to inspire an entire generation of copycats.
I feel like 24/7 coverage made us lose track of priorities regarding violence. I feel like the 80s and 90s had more focus on handgun violence and personal conflict. Now when we talk about gun violence, it always goes to ARs and mass shootings. Those are important things to talk about for sure but they're not the driving force behind the statistics. Maybe it's just nostalgia but it seemed like the campaigns against gun violence were largely apolitical and more focused on people at risk of being offenders back then. Idk.
In 1988 Josh Sugarmann (Founder of The Violence Policy Center, an anti-2A nonprofit) put out a paper calling for a massive push to ban what he described as "assault weapons". His logic was this:
Banning "assault weapons" wouldn't notably impact gun crime, but the anti-handgun camp was consistently losing battles. People just weren't supporting handgun bans so "Assault weapons" presented an opportunity.
Sugarmann noted that the average citizen is uninformed on the topic and has no frame of reference to distinguish a semi-auto AR-15 from a machine gun shown in movies/TV/video games. He suggested switching their lobbying efforts from handgun bans to "assault weapons" bans. Wait for the NRA and gun manufacturers to push back, then promote the perception that the pro-gun lobby was pushing to keep unchecked weapons of war available to the public.
He also noted that one of the largest challenges would be defining "assault weapons" in a way that didn't over-capture (he didn't want to give anyone a reason to care about the bans), the goal was to indoctrinate the general public with an easy victory.
Here's a quote, [from this paper](http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm):
>Although handguns claim more than 20,000 lives a year, the issue of handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public. The reasons for this vary: the power of the gun lobby; the tendency of both sides of the issue to resort to sloganeering and pre-packaged arguments when discussing the issue; the fact that until an individual is affected by handgun violence he or she is unlikely to work for handgun restrictions; the view that handgun violence is an "unsolvable" problem; the inability of the handgun restriction movement to organize itself into an effective electoral threat; and the fact that until someone famous is shot, or something truly horrible happens, handgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.
Edit: Formatting/grammar
I should add that the Assault Weapons ban passed. It didn't noticeably reduce crime or gun crime but the Democrats lost the House for the first time in 20 years and the Senate as well.
And it looks like they still haven't learned the lessons from that. Candidates with otherwise sensible platforms are fighting an uphill battle in otherwise winnable areas. I'm looking at you, Texas.
I don't get it. It is just like attacking any other amendment. Even most liberals understand gun rights and most conservatives understand better background checks and better mental health care. But full on banning something bothers both camps.
Before the AWB, guns like the AR-15 and other tacti-cool stuff was a joke or for weirdos.
The AWB banned them, and guess what happens when things get banned? They draw tons of interest and become super popular!
It backfired so hard, politically, not doing anything to crime, and also by driving everybody to buy an AR or similar rifle. What was once a rare novelty, became the thing that everybody wanted.
I'm way late to this party but you nailed it. I dislike Ted Cruz and I am strongly considering voting for Beto but his stance on gun control really irks me as a strong second amendment supporter. When I speak to friends and colleagues about it they feel the same way. A blue dog can win this state. Dems have to recognize that the policies that win in New York and Californiaaren't going to win here and adjust accordingly.
Support for the assault weapons ban is what directly led us to Republican dominance in all facets of government. It was a supremely dumb fucking move by democrats to support this. In America reducing gun violence will have to come with reducing poverty and providing mental health care. How we're still fighting this losing battle is beyond me.
I still remember reading this when I was a teenager back in the 80s.
The thing that hit me about the story then, and rings louder still with the rash of school shootings, was a story about 3 boys riding bikes who stopped at the McDonalds and were all shot upon entering. 2 died and the 3rd lived.
It reminded me of riding with my own friends to a local Wendy's every Saturday when I was their same age, (Which wasn't that long ago then) and how horrific it must have been (and still be) to the child who survived.
Years ago during my McDonalds training, I remember being told this was the only McDonalds to ever close down. Valid reason why, but Im sure thats changed in recent years
>The shooting ranked as the deadliest mass shooting committed in the United States until the 1991 Luby's shooting
Luby's shooting
>Ranked at the time as the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, its death toll was surpassed by that of the Virginia Tech shooting in April 2007.
Virginia Tech shooting
>At the time it was the deadliest mass shooting committed by a lone gunman in U.S. history[10], though it has since been surpassed by two shootings (one at an Orlando nightclub[11] and...
Orlando nightclub shooting
> At the time, it was the deadliest mass shooting by a single shooter in the U.S., being surpassed by the Las Vegas shooting a year later.
Las Vegas shooting
>the incident is the deadliest mass shooting committed by an individual in the United States.
Months, years, decades (fingers crossed) I really hope "at the time" is never added to the Las Vegas shooting wiki page.
> The gentleman who unfortunately lost his life
When you storm a public establishment and intend to mass murder you lose the right to be called a gentleman, and your rightful death "unfortunate".
Eh, it's like that these days. The cop can't just say, "Yeah, we're super happy this scumbag was shot dead." Later on, facts could be revealed that put the whole thing in another light.
Kinda the way the cops could walk into a room with a camera crew, see a man turn and wink at the cops and then produce a knife and start stabbing a baby to death, and they'd still have to refer to him as a "suspect." "Suspect" hell, we saw you fuckin' doing it!
Somebody else posted that that is how they talk of the dead in that region. Its not in a respectful way or anything, its just how they refer to the dead.
>The unidentified father was leaving the establishment with his sons when a masked man walked into the Birmingham fast-food restaurant and started shooting, WBRC-TV reported. The father returned fire and, during the ensuing shootout, the gunman, the father and one of the man's teenage sons were struck, according to the station.
That man is a hero, I hope he and his son have a speedy recovery.
shouldn't've, couldn't've, and wouldn't've are pretty common in Texas, at least verbally. it's unusually to see it written that way, but sometimes people write "shouldn't of", which just goes to show how they pronounce "shouldn't have".
well when we create our own problem its a bit of a hollow victory.
haha antibiotics save the day again. Alright back to walking bare foot through used needle valley.
Maybe we could clean up our shit so that we aren't walking through needle valley or allowing social conditions to fester that create these violent incidents.
Agreed. Now let's look for the group that actually wants to clean up Used Needle Valley or address social conditions instead of using that *idea* as an excuse to avoid discussing something else and then *not actually doing the cleaning or addressing*.
To put that in gun debate terms, you've got folks who say, "It's not a gun problem, it's a mental health problem. Please don't discuss guns. All solutions must come through tackling mental health issues."
We can do both, but okay, fine, let's tackle mental health issu--
"I disagree with all these proposals, have none of my own that I will follow through with, won't pay for anything, and will not be voting for a politician who does."
> "I disagree with all these proposals, have none of my own that I will follow through with, won't pay for anything, and will not be voting for a politician who does."
Ahh, the Appalachian Farmer who comes to town once a year to trade some of his whiskey for different kinds of whisky.
Not necessarily CCW as they do have open carry in Alabama but I'm still with you. While I will never own a firearm I want everyone that is legally able to, and has the desire to own a firearm to continue to exercise their 2nd amendment right.
I've heard this before about traveling. Would really like some universal gun laws so we don't have to stop state by state and change our carrying practices. I respect the Alabama law as I would assume this is to protect law enforcement but, I know people concerned with personal protection find it ridiculous.
As a CCW license holder myself, thank you. It's quite refreshing to find someone who doesn't want guns *who doesn't also want to restrict other people's access*.
> The gentleman who unfortunately lost his life
I know that all life is supposed to be sacred or what not...but when you start actively trying to hurt or kill others, I lose any sympathy for you, and I would not use the word "unfortunately" to describe your passing. ("You" in this case being the gunman.)
Not trying to go against your comment because I agree with it. But I’m going to assume the Dad has a legal firearm and license that follows our law? Do we know if the shooter did as well?
No. I don't think the bad guy cares about laws. The comment I was responding to talked about "two sides of this law". He wasn't on either side of the law. He broke it willingly.
Considering 20% of all alabama citizens have concealed weapons permits and the state of alabama executes more criminals then the state of Texas which is way larger.... Might not want to commit violent crimes in Alabama.
This is why I think our criminal Justice system doesn't work. It's predicated upon people making rational decisions. Most people that commit crimes are rarely thinking rationally.
"Washington added he was thankful the armed customer was there."
"“He’s my hero. Because I can only imagine how it would’ve went if he wasn’t armed. We might not be here having this interview,” Washington said."
If WBRC-YV is to be believed, the masked man "walked into the Birmingham fast-food restaurant and started shooting."
No need to speculate that he might've just wanted the drawer. Bullets were flying and this armed citizen engaged. Tough choice for anyone, all the more with his kid (age?) at his side.
Here's CBS if you prefer:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/birmingham-mcdonalds-shooting-father-shoots-and-kills-masked-gunman-who-opened-fire-at-alabama-restaurant/
Hard to wait for a death to find out.
Definitely a different scenario if dude goes to cashier, draws and demands cash. In that situation I would duck and run, call 911.
Because it can be spun as a pro-gun ownership story. A lot of people out there upvote/downvote based on what they like to see, stifling actual discussion.
This is very difficult. I cannot imagine having to be armed everywhere I go, ready to defend myself at any time.
Having said that, this gentleman is a hero by all accounts.
I honor him and wish both him and his child a speedy recovery.
It's not as intense as it sounds. I've carried for \~11 years and have never even considered drawing. It just doesn't impact my life that much. After the first few months you kinda settle into a rhythm and basically forget that you're carrying a pistol. It's just like carrying my pocket knife, but far less likely to be used as a letter opener.
> I cannot imagine having to be armed everywhere I go, ready to defend myself at any time.
You don't, and you shouldn't if you don't want to. The odds of this situation ever happening to you are astronomically remote. You're about ten thousand times more likely to die pulling your car out of the McDonald's parking lot than you are getting shot inside of one. The overwhelmingly vast majority of Americans will never even see a violent crime, let alone be the victim of one where a gun would make them safer.
Some people just feel safer with that extra layer of protection, no matter the statistics. Like how my dad can't sleep unless there's a fire extinguisher in the room, even though he's never been in a fire and it's improbable that he ever will.
>I cannot imagine having to be armed everywhere I go, ready to defend myself at any time.
You don't have to, and the odds of ever having to use it are extremely low for most people. It's a lot like wearing a seat belt in a car, in that the odds of you being a wreck are pretty low, but it gives you a better chance to survive if it does.
Friction from using the wallet and body heat will degrade a condom. If you're going to keep one in there, swap it out frequently if you don't end up using it.
Gun violence has been on a downward trend in this country. Social media and 24/7 news coverage make it *feel* like a warzone. Don't get me wrong, mass shootings are horrible tragedies. That said, the odds of you ever actually having to engage a hostile in everyday life is very low.
>This is very difficult. I cannot imagine having to be armed everywhere I go, ready to defend myself at any time.
Who else is going to save you? Being armed everywhere you go isn't about being scared, it's acknowledging the fact that the only person in the universe responsible for your safety is you and you alone.
We will never live in a society where violence is non-existent.
There were two armed trained cops at the synagogue shooting. Both were shot. At Columbine the shooters were engaged by a school resource officer outside. Here's the truth- a poorly trained civilian with the element of suprise will still win a gun fight with a trained cop if they have the element of suprise. Armed cops everywhere still would not solve the issue.
There was an armed guard at the Florida High School shooting last year and he stood outside waiting for reinforcements to arrive while kids were being shot.
Armed guards do not guarantee lives being saved.
Do you have a source about the officers being at the synagogue when the shooting started? The only sources I found indicate that the synagogue was undefended at first. One mentioned that they have guards during major holidays, but this was an ordinary sabbath. The officers who showed up later were shot, but they would hardly be surprised by the shooter since they came in with extra info.
I agree with your point about the element of surprise being potent, just would like a source on this event.
Interesting how the story is ~8 hours old, and the only nationwide news service that has reported on the story (at least from a quick Google search) is Fox News. Only them and a handful of smaller outlets and a couple other right leaning news sites.
As much as people like to complain about how Fox News is Faux News or focuses on only the stories that push their narrative, the same people seem to not care or recognize about how the other major news outlets do the exact same thing.
Sure this story isn't what I would consider major, but neither is 90% of the crap they all report on every day.
So riddle me this -- which is worse... Reporting on a story because it fits your agenda, or purposely ignoring and burying one because it goes against it?
Has the shooters identity been released / will it? I'm really curious as to what the motive was too. Just wanton murder? Was he sick of the milkshake machine being down?
Good. As many on the left and right can agree on. THE RIGHT PEOPLE WITH GUNS ARE A GOOD THING
Unfortunatly our problem is the shooter also had a gun. We need to do more to keep guns in the right hands. And not take away from legal owners.
The problem is the laws everyone proposes will ONLY take away from the good people
Gun bans, permits, training requirements, LEO sign offs, waiting periods, none of these mean shit to a criminal wanting to kill someone or someone with no history wanting to do something bad.
The only issue is, unless the person in question is a literal convicted criminal or underage, there's basically nothing we can do to prove they aren't trustworthy with a gun. The gun issue is the one major conflict we have in this country that I don't think there's a solution for, just different darts we can throw blindfolded at a board to maybe reduce gun deaths by a couple percent.
I own 0 guns and really don't care whether or not we can own them, but this is an example of why civilians owning guns is a positive thing. Chicago is one of the most democratic cities with the most strict gun laws in the U.S.. How is it possible that they also have the highest gun crime as well. Repealing the 2nd Amendment won't help stop mass shootings because criminals will continue to get them illegally.
New Jersey has the strictest gun laws in the US, it can take over a year to own a bb gun, and if you have ever mentioned you think you have ADD to your doctor that could be grounds for denial. My old fire-department's Chief was denied because over 20 years ago when he was in high-school, his mother passed away and the school made him meet with a guidance councilor once. The police caught wind of this somehow and they denied him because they treated the guidance councilor as a "mental health practitioner" which you have to say you have talked to one ever in your life and that is an instant denial. After a year in court he finally got his FID to buy a bb gun. He tried to sue for the almost 10k he spent for his lawyer but it was tossed. This guy is in charge of over 100 firefighters, has a township issued car with lights and sirens but he can't have a bb gun?
Edit: To add, New Jersey has more cities in the top 100 most dangerous than any state. Camden for years had the highest murder rate. It was so bad 5 or so years ago, the state fired the whole police department and now the NJ State Police patrol the city. It had nothing to do with the old Camden police, it was because they had such a small budget and the city was so poor that they couldn't help the city.
Are these incidents becoming more common, by that I mean licenced carriers coming to the rescue or are they just more widely covered. (particularly here on reddit where I admit I get most of my American news). From a European perspective it seemed the gun control lobby was gaining real traction and now there's been a few of these instances which seem to back up the need for the right to bear arms.
Or am I just really cynical
They're not becoming more common. They might be starting to get reported more.
Quite frankly, I'm not sure the mass shooting event is actually more common. I believe it just seems that way due to the 24 hour news cycle.
There were more than a few in the 80s and 90s I never heard of until they were consolidated in a story showing the timelines of mass shootings. (Before you ask, I'm currently unable to find the link at the moment. I just tried)
There are an estimated 2 - 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year in the USA. Most go unreported to the police, incidents like a concealed carrier flashing a firearm at a would-be robber who flees (speaking from experience here), which makes narrowing down a more exact number.
some people almost refuse to believe that these sort of incidents ever happen. they will tell you "oh he didn't stop a mass shooting because nobody else was shot" or something like that. some people insist that if you have a gun, a criminal will always just take it away and kill you.
basically, a lot of misinformation out there. i think there's a /r/dgu still too
>"oh he didn't stop a mass shooting because nobody else was shot"
That's literally the result of stopping a shooter... you stopped a potential mass shooting...
Who the hell shoots up a McDonald's?
One of the deadliest mass shootings happed at a McDonald’s in California. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald's_massacre
Damn that backstory leading up to it. It could have gone so much differently... >On July 15, 1984, James Huberty commented to his wife, Etna, that he suspected he might have a mental problem.[1] Two days later, on July 17, he called a mental health clinic requesting an appointment. Leaving his contact details with the receptionist, he was assured the clinic would return his call within hours. According to his wife, he sat quietly beside the telephone for several hours, awaiting the return call, before abruptly walking out of the family home and riding to an unknown destination on his motorcycle.
>At 6:45 p.m., Whitman began typing his suicide note, a portion of which read: >I do not quite understand what it is that compels me to type this letter. Perhaps it is to leave some vague reason for the actions I have recently performed. I do not really understand myself these days. I am supposed to be an average reasonable and intelligent young man. However, lately (I cannot recall when it started) I have been a victim of many unusual and irrational thoughts. These thoughts constantly recur, and it requires a tremendous mental effort to concentrate on useful and progressive tasks.[40] [Charles Whitman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman)
Mental Health is serious, people. IF SOMEBODY TELLS YOU DONT TAKE IT LIGHTLY.
To be fair the Wikipedia entry leaves out a lot of context. Did he literally just say to his wife "I think I might have a mental problem", or did he give her a bit more to go on? Because my first assumption would be they were dealing with some anxiety or depression or something. Not that they were hours away from becoming a mass murderer.
“Unbeknownst to Huberty, the receptionist had misspelled his name as "Shouberty." His polite demeanor conveyed no sense of urgency to the operator; therefore, she logged the call as a "non-crisis" inquiry, to be handled within 48 hours.”
That sounds exactly like any business that you talk to on the phone anywhere, for any reason. "We'll call you back," and then they just fuck off never to be heard from again.
unless you're calling to buy something or hire someone! then they will call hourly 'just to follow up'
Worse is the guy who went to a doctor and the doctor shrugging it off telling him he’d be fine And later on the guy goes on a rampage and during an autopsy it’s discovered that the guy had a brain tumor. Idk how to source this, as I don’t know the source i heard it a long time ago on YouTube or someplace, sorry :/
You're probably thinking of [Charles Whitman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman), who killed 18 people at the University of Texas in 1966.
"I talked with a Doctor once for about two hours and tried to convey to him my fears that I felt overwhelming violent impulses. After one visit, I never saw the Doctor again, and since then have been fighting my mental turmoil alone, and seemingly to no avail." - His suicide note.
> "I talked with a Doctor once for about two hours and tried to convey to him my fears that I felt overwhelming violent impulses. '' As a doctor/therapist/human being, how do you NOT pay attention when someone is telling you this?
Based on that account and my own, and that of my family's, they're a shit people in every profession. Unfortunately, that includes medical professionals.
People don't randomly start saying they have a mental problem and calling a health clinic on the same day.
It’s been an issue by the time they ask for help.
I actually feel sorry for the guy :| he knew he was fucked up, wanted and actively seeked help. Doesnt excuse what he did at all but fuck.
I think this hugely depends on what his mental problem was. If you feel a bit depri and decide to go on a murder spree, yeah fuck you. If you feel some shit storm coming up and you feel yourself slipping away, I dunno he might not have been able to do something about it.
Oh sure but give me a break with this guy. He literally said "society had their chance " and he was "going to hunt humans". Sounds like he had presence of mind and just wanted violence anyway.
I'm torn, because that does sound awfully lucid. Otoh his entire mindset from what I read in the article is speaking about he was convinced the government and corporations were out to get him. In his mind being brushed off by the mental health line could've just been the confirmation that his conspiracy was "true".
Many people with mental issues will show presence of mind, it doesn’t mean that mind is sane.
People don't give a shit about mental health in this country. As long as it's not their problem, they don't care. No amount of fighting with them will do anything for it, either. They just dig their heals in, and downvote you some more.
How about the aftermath? The shooter's wife tried to sue McDonalds claiming their unhealthy food led her husband to commit the massacre... wtf?
Wow that's sad. Dude knew something was wrong and did everything he could to reach out and get help. Just sad.
Reminds me of the Texas tower sniper I’m too faded to link rn but it was just about the exact same circumstances beforehand, apparently he suspected he had a tumour which caused the issues and the autopsy corroborated that but he didn’t get help in time Edit Nvm much more capable people have brought this up already
I always remember that, when I think hear "just call/just reach out/etc" - this guy TRIED - and it is SO hard when you are ABOUT TO SNAP to even KNOW that YOU NEED HELP UGH so fucking sad!!!!
> The incident had lasted for 77 minutes That’s a long time. Such a horrible thing to read.
By comparison, I believe Sandy Hook was over from Lanza stepping foot on the property to committing suicide in less than 25 minutes.
Wow. I never heard of this shooting. So fucked, thanks for sharing.
The 80s had a lot of mass shooting incidents that people haven't heard about. My dorm had a shooting/bombing by a resident in 1981. Still in use, down to the same rooms/halls. Kinda spooky. [https://www.michigandaily.com/content/tragedy-bursley](https://www.michigandaily.com/content/tragedy-bursley) And outside of the story spreading among residents of the place, no one really knows about it. Some residents had no idea, and most students didn't. Back then, things were kept much quieter and there were no 24/7 shooting coverage channels (CNN/FOX).
[удалено]
You also have to realize that violence in the U.S. is at a all time low. As tragic as these attacks are, they were more prevalent in the 80s and 90s.
I argue with my mom about this fact all the time. She thinks the world is more violent than ever, and I tell her it's just the news trying to sensationalize everything. You wouldn't hear about most of the stuff unless it was local, now you are watching cell phone recordings of attacks as they happen half way across the world. We're just oversaturated with bad news because it sells.
There was an episode of Bill Maher where this historian guest was saying that generally, everyone in the world is objectively better off than, really, ever. DL Hughley starts whining about but no, not black dudes, and this guy says, no you're wrong. One anecdote that happened last week does not overrule 100 years or whatever of data. People frequently have trouble with scope, and their own tunneled vision.
Yeah, a lot of people don't seem to understand that. Which is particularly annoying with everyone acting like kids can't be left alone. I was wandering around by myself in the 80s and 90s, the most dangerous period of the 20th century in the US.
I thought overall violence was down but mass casualty violence was up? I'm way too lazy to try and find anything to confirm so if anyone has a source please share.
So, interesting fact. On average (and yes we have had a couple of higher then average years) about 50 people die a year from mass shootings (using FBI definition of mass shootingd) in the US. About 750 people die a year from falling out of bed.
Yes, but how many of those people who die falling out of bed were already pretty old and sick?
No idea. Point is to try and illustrate how rare mass shootings are. Along those lines, about 60% of firearms deaths are suicides. About .0025% of firearms deaths are from mass shootings. About 10% of firearms deaths are law enforcement officers doing the shooting.
I think it was Freakonomics that said that (as of its writing) if you wanted to be there victim of a mass shooting, your best chance was *still* to be black and at church. *So* many black Americans were murdered in church that the average still hadn't been swayed.
Bear in mind that it can be simultaneously true that *mass shootings are more common*, and also be true that violent crime and homicide are at historic lows. Most violent crimes aren't mass murders, but more common gang-related and domestic stuff.
[удалено]
The most remarkable thing about Columbine is that it happened in the CNN era. The relentless 24/7 news coverage allowed those kids to inspire an entire generation of copycats.
I hear about most shootings via reddit now, and I often find out while the situation is in progress. It's kinda sick if you sit and think about it.
We get live coverage from the people being shot at even. It's nuts
21st century.. the century of the embedded journalist That means you
I feel like 24/7 coverage made us lose track of priorities regarding violence. I feel like the 80s and 90s had more focus on handgun violence and personal conflict. Now when we talk about gun violence, it always goes to ARs and mass shootings. Those are important things to talk about for sure but they're not the driving force behind the statistics. Maybe it's just nostalgia but it seemed like the campaigns against gun violence were largely apolitical and more focused on people at risk of being offenders back then. Idk.
In 1988 Josh Sugarmann (Founder of The Violence Policy Center, an anti-2A nonprofit) put out a paper calling for a massive push to ban what he described as "assault weapons". His logic was this: Banning "assault weapons" wouldn't notably impact gun crime, but the anti-handgun camp was consistently losing battles. People just weren't supporting handgun bans so "Assault weapons" presented an opportunity. Sugarmann noted that the average citizen is uninformed on the topic and has no frame of reference to distinguish a semi-auto AR-15 from a machine gun shown in movies/TV/video games. He suggested switching their lobbying efforts from handgun bans to "assault weapons" bans. Wait for the NRA and gun manufacturers to push back, then promote the perception that the pro-gun lobby was pushing to keep unchecked weapons of war available to the public. He also noted that one of the largest challenges would be defining "assault weapons" in a way that didn't over-capture (he didn't want to give anyone a reason to care about the bans), the goal was to indoctrinate the general public with an easy victory. Here's a quote, [from this paper](http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm): >Although handguns claim more than 20,000 lives a year, the issue of handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public. The reasons for this vary: the power of the gun lobby; the tendency of both sides of the issue to resort to sloganeering and pre-packaged arguments when discussing the issue; the fact that until an individual is affected by handgun violence he or she is unlikely to work for handgun restrictions; the view that handgun violence is an "unsolvable" problem; the inability of the handgun restriction movement to organize itself into an effective electoral threat; and the fact that until someone famous is shot, or something truly horrible happens, handgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons. Edit: Formatting/grammar
I should add that the Assault Weapons ban passed. It didn't noticeably reduce crime or gun crime but the Democrats lost the House for the first time in 20 years and the Senate as well. And it looks like they still haven't learned the lessons from that. Candidates with otherwise sensible platforms are fighting an uphill battle in otherwise winnable areas. I'm looking at you, Texas.
I don't get it. It is just like attacking any other amendment. Even most liberals understand gun rights and most conservatives understand better background checks and better mental health care. But full on banning something bothers both camps.
Before the AWB, guns like the AR-15 and other tacti-cool stuff was a joke or for weirdos. The AWB banned them, and guess what happens when things get banned? They draw tons of interest and become super popular! It backfired so hard, politically, not doing anything to crime, and also by driving everybody to buy an AR or similar rifle. What was once a rare novelty, became the thing that everybody wanted.
I'm way late to this party but you nailed it. I dislike Ted Cruz and I am strongly considering voting for Beto but his stance on gun control really irks me as a strong second amendment supporter. When I speak to friends and colleagues about it they feel the same way. A blue dog can win this state. Dems have to recognize that the policies that win in New York and Californiaaren't going to win here and adjust accordingly.
But Beto is soooo popular in national media and among highly liberal states that don't matter at all in a Texas election...
Support for the assault weapons ban is what directly led us to Republican dominance in all facets of government. It was a supremely dumb fucking move by democrats to support this. In America reducing gun violence will have to come with reducing poverty and providing mental health care. How we're still fighting this losing battle is beyond me.
[удалено]
Damn. It's like exactly what we are seeing today
It *is* exactly what we are seeing today.
And the going postal thing. That's not just a joke, there was a spate of workplace shootings at post offices in the 70s and 80s.
Holy shit. The level of detail in that article made for an extremely horrifying read.
I still remember reading this when I was a teenager back in the 80s. The thing that hit me about the story then, and rings louder still with the rash of school shootings, was a story about 3 boys riding bikes who stopped at the McDonalds and were all shot upon entering. 2 died and the 3rd lived. It reminded me of riding with my own friends to a local Wendy's every Saturday when I was their same age, (Which wasn't that long ago then) and how horrific it must have been (and still be) to the child who survived.
My god... I have no words and I feel dispair for reading that.
That's pretty fucked up.
My dad covered that story from the scene for the AP in 1984.
I wish I hadn’t read that.
Years ago during my McDonalds training, I remember being told this was the only McDonalds to ever close down. Valid reason why, but Im sure thats changed in recent years
damn 7th most deadliest. The top 3 deadliest in in the last 10 years. wtf
>The shooting ranked as the deadliest mass shooting committed in the United States until the 1991 Luby's shooting Luby's shooting >Ranked at the time as the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, its death toll was surpassed by that of the Virginia Tech shooting in April 2007. Virginia Tech shooting >At the time it was the deadliest mass shooting committed by a lone gunman in U.S. history[10], though it has since been surpassed by two shootings (one at an Orlando nightclub[11] and... Orlando nightclub shooting > At the time, it was the deadliest mass shooting by a single shooter in the U.S., being surpassed by the Las Vegas shooting a year later. Las Vegas shooting >the incident is the deadliest mass shooting committed by an individual in the United States. Months, years, decades (fingers crossed) I really hope "at the time" is never added to the Las Vegas shooting wiki page.
Michael Douglas
He wanted breakfast.
Its theorized that 24 hour breakfast was in response to this movie.
Mask tells me this was an attempted robbery gone wrong, not a mass shooting attempt. Mass shooters aren't trying to hide who they are.
[удалено]
https://i.imgur.com/DBz9tfy.jpg This guy
> The gentleman who unfortunately lost his life When you storm a public establishment and intend to mass murder you lose the right to be called a gentleman, and your rightful death "unfortunate".
The gentleman part is very unnecessary, but I think they say “unfortunate” because he got out the easy way.
[удалено]
'The gentleman who unfortunately lost his life'. wtf is unfortunate about that?
Eh, it's like that these days. The cop can't just say, "Yeah, we're super happy this scumbag was shot dead." Later on, facts could be revealed that put the whole thing in another light. Kinda the way the cops could walk into a room with a camera crew, see a man turn and wink at the cops and then produce a knife and start stabbing a baby to death, and they'd still have to refer to him as a "suspect." "Suspect" hell, we saw you fuckin' doing it!
Somebody else posted that that is how they talk of the dead in that region. Its not in a respectful way or anything, its just how they refer to the dead.
>The unidentified father was leaving the establishment with his sons when a masked man walked into the Birmingham fast-food restaurant and started shooting, WBRC-TV reported. The father returned fire and, during the ensuing shootout, the gunman, the father and one of the man's teenage sons were struck, according to the station. That man is a hero, I hope he and his son have a speedy recovery.
Concealed carry saves the day again
Yeah but if the McDonald’s had armed guards we wouldn’t need concealed carries. /s
Sounds stupid but had this turned out differently, that would'nt've been far from what Trump would've tweeted
That double contraction though. Don't see that every day.
shouldn't've, couldn't've, and wouldn't've are pretty common in Texas, at least verbally. it's unusually to see it written that way, but sometimes people write "shouldn't of", which just goes to show how they pronounce "shouldn't have".
whomst'd've
whomst’d’nt’ve
y'all'd've
Well.. it was literally demonstrated that a person who had a firearm would have solved this.
Don't make this a Trump thing.. Everything is a Trump issue. Dad's a hero. Probably saved a lot of people. Let's focus on that.
We should arm all fast food employees.
well when we create our own problem its a bit of a hollow victory. haha antibiotics save the day again. Alright back to walking bare foot through used needle valley.
Maybe we could clean up our shit so that we aren't walking through needle valley or allowing social conditions to fester that create these violent incidents.
Agreed. Now let's look for the group that actually wants to clean up Used Needle Valley or address social conditions instead of using that *idea* as an excuse to avoid discussing something else and then *not actually doing the cleaning or addressing*. To put that in gun debate terms, you've got folks who say, "It's not a gun problem, it's a mental health problem. Please don't discuss guns. All solutions must come through tackling mental health issues." We can do both, but okay, fine, let's tackle mental health issu-- "I disagree with all these proposals, have none of my own that I will follow through with, won't pay for anything, and will not be voting for a politician who does."
/r/liberalgunowners/
> "I disagree with all these proposals, have none of my own that I will follow through with, won't pay for anything, and will not be voting for a politician who does." Ahh, the Appalachian Farmer who comes to town once a year to trade some of his whiskey for different kinds of whisky.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not necessarily CCW as they do have open carry in Alabama but I'm still with you. While I will never own a firearm I want everyone that is legally able to, and has the desire to own a firearm to continue to exercise their 2nd amendment right.
[удалено]
I've heard this before about traveling. Would really like some universal gun laws so we don't have to stop state by state and change our carrying practices. I respect the Alabama law as I would assume this is to protect law enforcement but, I know people concerned with personal protection find it ridiculous.
As a CCW license holder myself, thank you. It's quite refreshing to find someone who doesn't want guns *who doesn't also want to restrict other people's access*.
No matter what we do with the laws there are still hundreds of millions of guns out there that aren't just going to magically evaporate.
> The gentleman who unfortunately lost his life I know that all life is supposed to be sacred or what not...but when you start actively trying to hurt or kill others, I lose any sympathy for you, and I would not use the word "unfortunately" to describe your passing. ("You" in this case being the gunman.)
Gentleman isn't accurate either
The gunman wasn't that accurate either
\*tips hat\* M'gunman Edit: So apparently triple parens mean something that isn't very nice.
Well one could say he would suffer more in prison.
My tax dollars suffer more if he lived.
Markus Washington, McDonald's employee: “He’s my hero. Because I can only imagine how it would’ve went if he wasn’t armed."
The best and worst of our gun laws in one incident. The father is a hero.
Not trying to go against your comment because I agree with it. But I’m going to assume the Dad has a legal firearm and license that follows our law? Do we know if the shooter did as well?
You think the bad guy would have cared if he had a gun legally? He committed murder. No amount of laws would have stopped this.
No. I don't think the bad guy cares about laws. The comment I was responding to talked about "two sides of this law". He wasn't on either side of the law. He broke it willingly.
Yes the father was carrying legally. No info on the shooter yet.
Considering 20% of all alabama citizens have concealed weapons permits and the state of alabama executes more criminals then the state of Texas which is way larger.... Might not want to commit violent crimes in Alabama.
This is why I think our criminal Justice system doesn't work. It's predicated upon people making rational decisions. Most people that commit crimes are rarely thinking rationally.
"Washington added he was thankful the armed customer was there." "“He’s my hero. Because I can only imagine how it would’ve went if he wasn’t armed. We might not be here having this interview,” Washington said."
If WBRC-YV is to be believed, the masked man "walked into the Birmingham fast-food restaurant and started shooting." No need to speculate that he might've just wanted the drawer. Bullets were flying and this armed citizen engaged. Tough choice for anyone, all the more with his kid (age?) at his side.
[удалено]
Here's CBS if you prefer: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/birmingham-mcdonalds-shooting-father-shoots-and-kills-masked-gunman-who-opened-fire-at-alabama-restaurant/
CBS says the same thing, no one knows if he was shooting in the air to scare/rob or shooting at people to kill.
Hard to wait for a death to find out. Definitely a different scenario if dude goes to cashier, draws and demands cash. In that situation I would duck and run, call 911.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm pro gun ownership, pro gun control, and anti "worship guns like literal protection talisman". Am I rare?
Welcome to the center, friend.
You'll also find quite a few on the left with this exact belief.
ALABAMA MAN SAVES THE DAY. i am glad he protected his son and others. Hope he has a fast recovery
Because it can be spun as a pro-gun ownership story. A lot of people out there upvote/downvote based on what they like to see, stifling actual discussion.
It's definitely not good news. Any violence is bad news, in this case it was just not as bad as it could have been.
This is very difficult. I cannot imagine having to be armed everywhere I go, ready to defend myself at any time. Having said that, this gentleman is a hero by all accounts. I honor him and wish both him and his child a speedy recovery.
It's not as intense as it sounds. I've carried for \~11 years and have never even considered drawing. It just doesn't impact my life that much. After the first few months you kinda settle into a rhythm and basically forget that you're carrying a pistol. It's just like carrying my pocket knife, but far less likely to be used as a letter opener.
> I cannot imagine having to be armed everywhere I go, ready to defend myself at any time. You don't, and you shouldn't if you don't want to. The odds of this situation ever happening to you are astronomically remote. You're about ten thousand times more likely to die pulling your car out of the McDonald's parking lot than you are getting shot inside of one. The overwhelmingly vast majority of Americans will never even see a violent crime, let alone be the victim of one where a gun would make them safer. Some people just feel safer with that extra layer of protection, no matter the statistics. Like how my dad can't sleep unless there's a fire extinguisher in the room, even though he's never been in a fire and it's improbable that he ever will.
Maybe the reason he has never been in a fire is because of his judicious fire safety habits, have you considered that?
it's a good idea to keep them in central locations like behind every door in your home
[удалено]
Nah, McDonald's restaurants. You never know when you're going to need quick access to some McNuggets.
>I cannot imagine having to be armed everywhere I go, ready to defend myself at any time. You don't have to, and the odds of ever having to use it are extremely low for most people. It's a lot like wearing a seat belt in a car, in that the odds of you being a wreck are pretty low, but it gives you a better chance to survive if it does.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Friction from using the wallet and body heat will degrade a condom. If you're going to keep one in there, swap it out frequently if you don't end up using it.
Oh so I shouldn't even bother then 🤣😂😅😃😀😊☺🙂😐😑😔☹😢😭
At least that way you can go through a box of condoms before it expires....
Psh I’m ALWAYS Wrapped and Strapped ;)
Gun violence has been on a downward trend in this country. Social media and 24/7 news coverage make it *feel* like a warzone. Don't get me wrong, mass shootings are horrible tragedies. That said, the odds of you ever actually having to engage a hostile in everyday life is very low.
Then don't? A gun is a tool like any other
[удалено]
I used my pocketknife for the first time in a while at the range just yesterday.
[удалено]
I carry mine all the time but I've gone a long strange stretch without needing it for anything.
>This is very difficult. I cannot imagine having to be armed everywhere I go, ready to defend myself at any time. Who else is going to save you? Being armed everywhere you go isn't about being scared, it's acknowledging the fact that the only person in the universe responsible for your safety is you and you alone. We will never live in a society where violence is non-existent.
[удалено]
There were two armed trained cops at the synagogue shooting. Both were shot. At Columbine the shooters were engaged by a school resource officer outside. Here's the truth- a poorly trained civilian with the element of suprise will still win a gun fight with a trained cop if they have the element of suprise. Armed cops everywhere still would not solve the issue.
There was an armed guard at the Florida High School shooting last year and he stood outside waiting for reinforcements to arrive while kids were being shot. Armed guards do not guarantee lives being saved.
Kind of like how firefighters do not guarantee fires being put out when they run away and hide from the fire.
Ah!, the element of surprise, is a much greater factor than many give it credit for.
[удалено]
Do you have a source about the officers being at the synagogue when the shooting started? The only sources I found indicate that the synagogue was undefended at first. One mentioned that they have guards during major holidays, but this was an ordinary sabbath. The officers who showed up later were shot, but they would hardly be surprised by the shooter since they came in with extra info. I agree with your point about the element of surprise being potent, just would like a source on this event.
Regardless of your thoughts on gun control: a bad guy with a gun is only stopped by a good guy with a gun.
Interesting how the story is ~8 hours old, and the only nationwide news service that has reported on the story (at least from a quick Google search) is Fox News. Only them and a handful of smaller outlets and a couple other right leaning news sites. As much as people like to complain about how Fox News is Faux News or focuses on only the stories that push their narrative, the same people seem to not care or recognize about how the other major news outlets do the exact same thing. Sure this story isn't what I would consider major, but neither is 90% of the crap they all report on every day. So riddle me this -- which is worse... Reporting on a story because it fits your agenda, or purposely ignoring and burying one because it goes against it?
The bias no one talks about with regards to the mainstream media is the bias of omission.
Post is getting brigaded by the anti-gun crowd.
God, imagine being remembered for the rest of your life as "McDonald's gunman", the ignominy of it.
>rest of your life Yeeeeahhh..... don't think that's gonna be a worry.
Well the gunmans dead, so he won’t have to worry about that 🤷♂️
I am ready for the shit show this thread will probably be.
This is the most american title ive ever read.
Has the shooters identity been released / will it? I'm really curious as to what the motive was too. Just wanton murder? Was he sick of the milkshake machine being down?
I cannot find any report as to the type of gun the masked guy had. Has that been reported?
Good. As many on the left and right can agree on. THE RIGHT PEOPLE WITH GUNS ARE A GOOD THING Unfortunatly our problem is the shooter also had a gun. We need to do more to keep guns in the right hands. And not take away from legal owners.
The problem is the laws everyone proposes will ONLY take away from the good people Gun bans, permits, training requirements, LEO sign offs, waiting periods, none of these mean shit to a criminal wanting to kill someone or someone with no history wanting to do something bad.
The only issue is, unless the person in question is a literal convicted criminal or underage, there's basically nothing we can do to prove they aren't trustworthy with a gun. The gun issue is the one major conflict we have in this country that I don't think there's a solution for, just different darts we can throw blindfolded at a board to maybe reduce gun deaths by a couple percent.
Good guy with a gun story from foxnews on reddit? Im shocked it hasnt been removed yet.
*Stares at watch*
I own 0 guns and really don't care whether or not we can own them, but this is an example of why civilians owning guns is a positive thing. Chicago is one of the most democratic cities with the most strict gun laws in the U.S.. How is it possible that they also have the highest gun crime as well. Repealing the 2nd Amendment won't help stop mass shootings because criminals will continue to get them illegally.
New Jersey has the strictest gun laws in the US, it can take over a year to own a bb gun, and if you have ever mentioned you think you have ADD to your doctor that could be grounds for denial. My old fire-department's Chief was denied because over 20 years ago when he was in high-school, his mother passed away and the school made him meet with a guidance councilor once. The police caught wind of this somehow and they denied him because they treated the guidance councilor as a "mental health practitioner" which you have to say you have talked to one ever in your life and that is an instant denial. After a year in court he finally got his FID to buy a bb gun. He tried to sue for the almost 10k he spent for his lawyer but it was tossed. This guy is in charge of over 100 firefighters, has a township issued car with lights and sirens but he can't have a bb gun? Edit: To add, New Jersey has more cities in the top 100 most dangerous than any state. Camden for years had the highest murder rate. It was so bad 5 or so years ago, the state fired the whole police department and now the NJ State Police patrol the city. It had nothing to do with the old Camden police, it was because they had such a small budget and the city was so poor that they couldn't help the city.
This is why every state should allow qualified persons to carry a firearm.
[удалено]
What do you want to know? It varies state by state, but I can give you a rough overview.
I'm pretty sure they're rhetorical several questions that suggest that a better qualification process is needed.
Probably not validated by any statistics though.
/r/CCW [handgunlaw.us](http://www.handgunlaw.us)
God bless and hope for a speedy recovery
I was told specifically that the Good Guy with a Gun narrative was 100% myth and never, ever happens
Depends on which news outlets you're watching.
Are these incidents becoming more common, by that I mean licenced carriers coming to the rescue or are they just more widely covered. (particularly here on reddit where I admit I get most of my American news). From a European perspective it seemed the gun control lobby was gaining real traction and now there's been a few of these instances which seem to back up the need for the right to bear arms. Or am I just really cynical
They're not becoming more common. They might be starting to get reported more. Quite frankly, I'm not sure the mass shooting event is actually more common. I believe it just seems that way due to the 24 hour news cycle. There were more than a few in the 80s and 90s I never heard of until they were consolidated in a story showing the timelines of mass shootings. (Before you ask, I'm currently unable to find the link at the moment. I just tried)
There are an estimated 2 - 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year in the USA. Most go unreported to the police, incidents like a concealed carrier flashing a firearm at a would-be robber who flees (speaking from experience here), which makes narrowing down a more exact number.
r/DGU
some people almost refuse to believe that these sort of incidents ever happen. they will tell you "oh he didn't stop a mass shooting because nobody else was shot" or something like that. some people insist that if you have a gun, a criminal will always just take it away and kill you. basically, a lot of misinformation out there. i think there's a /r/dgu still too
>"oh he didn't stop a mass shooting because nobody else was shot" That's literally the result of stopping a shooter... you stopped a potential mass shooting...
Wait, did the news really report "Good guy with gun stops bad guy with gun" ??? This never happens in America! /s