536
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] yoz@aussie.zone 65 points 1 year ago
[-] JoeyBalls@lemmynsfw.com 15 points 1 year ago

Definitely not for Maine though. This guy was a military weapons instructor for the army. My cousin was at West Point with him this summer and he is the one who got him a psych eval. One day on the shooting range I guess he had a psychotic breakdown talking about the voices in his head and wanting to shoot up places. The shooter was absolutely pissed about having to get a psych eval. The shooter is still at large and it's terrifying especially because he might be going after my cousin.

[-] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 42 points 1 year ago

Does anyone here believe this? Like anyone at all?

[-] Illuminostro@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

Well, my cousin's brother's sister's step-mom told me...

[-] aesthelete@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

It's a very trying time, plz Bitcoin me your thoughts in my unverifiable time of need. 🙏

[-] Illuminostro@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Of course, how does... One Meeeeeellliooonnnnn sound?

[-] Zevlen@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

May I have just 1 Bitcoin please?

[-] JoeyBalls@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Damn, I was just trying to explain what happened but ok just insult me.

EDIT: I can see how it sounds fake lmao I just reread it. But this would be the most fucked up thing to lie about.

[-] LifeOfChance@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Yah but not for maine. It's a very quite state

[-] UnspecificGravity@lemmings.world 32 points 1 year ago

This one shooter is likely to nearly match the TOTAL homicide rate for Maine last year (30). I think that when a state is looking at HALF THIER TOTAL MURDERS being from a mass shooting event, its time to stop treating them as an insignificant aberration and as a legitimate contributor to overall violence.

[-] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 year ago

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/mass-shootings-are-rare-firearm-suicides-are-much-more-common-and-kill-more-americans

Problem is statistically they are an anomoly. You're more likely to shoot yourself than be a victim of any definition of mass shooting by any compiler.

Your point is more a point of "how statistics can be used to mislead." It sounds like a lot when you say you "doubled" something, for instance, but if there weren't a lot to begin with (say 2,) there will still not be a lot of the thing when doubled, (like 4).

Getting shot at all is an anomaly, but if its a big enough problem to care about AT ALL (and clearly anyone who owns a gun for defense cares about that anomaly a great deal) then mass shootings are indeed a significant contributor to that issue.

Also, a person's personal risk of suicide is highly dependent on their own health and choices. I can exert control over that risk by simply not owning a gun. How do I mitigate my risk of being the victim of a mass shooting? Just don't go outside?

[-] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

You might not be aware but people who own guns for defense aren't only "worried" about other people with guns, you can also use them legally to defend yourself against knives, blunt instruments, multiple attackers, and any other deadly threats. Idk about you but I'd rather brandish or even fire a gun at a guy than be stabbed or sliced open by him. I'd also rather be able to shoot a mass shooter if the opportunity presented itself than simply die in the same scenario, even if you "shelter in place” if he gets in the room I'd rather be able to make a last stand than hold my hands up like the old guy in the red sweater (guess I'll die meme.)

Also that isn't actually true, if you're suicidal and don't own a gun you probably own some [OTC MEDS REDACTED], hell you may even already have a real drug problem that happens to accidentally kill +96,000 people a year (36,000 more than guns including suicide), you don't just "not do it" because "no gun." (Also anyone considering, don't, seek help.) Personally I think the best way to mitigate your chance of dying in a mass shooting is to become someone willing and able to save yourself should that proverbial lighning strike. What's the best way to mitigate your chance of fire? No electricity and never cook, right? Well that isn't realistic, so we buy fire extinguishers. Sure we have the fire department, but we also recognize it's best if people on site can stop the fire early with the extinguisher because they can act quicker, similar principles apply to the mass shootings, it's just that guns are a bit more of a responsibilty than fire extinguisgers, thus the CCWs and NICs checks, and all that.

[-] Zevlen@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

Doubled , troubled, shmuttled. I think 🤔 You're all missing the point here. It doesn't matter if it happened in Maine , it doesn't matter who done it. The issue is people died from a mass shooting. So it means in general; no matter how high or low the risk of You personally getting shot in a mass shooting; you can be one of those victims at any time.

People literally died; and that means that You or I, our family/friends can be next. It's happened sooo many times that at the very least means that you might meet a victim of a mass shooting in your lifetime. And even if You don't; well we are all still effected by the news and knowledge that tomorrow "You or I" can be next. It's a fear and an issue that usually doesn't exist in full democracies. But here in USA we got a flawed democracy with no hope 😕😞 of ever fixing that problem.

Thx for reading.

[-] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago

You can always die in more ways than you can imagine, tomorrow is never guaranteed, so make the most of today.

[-] Tekchip@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

While your argument is sound it doesn't dissuade from the point the preceding argument was trying to make. Which maybe you missed, or maybe you just like to debate? Guns as they are now in this country are a big fucking problem. Anomalies are just as bad, and likely preventable, as any other thing with a higher number on some chart. Many might argue >0 is a number to large when it comes to loss of life.

[-] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

Except that they're asserting they aren't exactly what they are, a statistical anomoly, and they are attempting to fear tactic people into "zomg half?!"

Good luck getting the 600,000,000 guns out of civilian hands who don't want to give them up with no registry to know who/where they are, and the trillions of rnds of ammo stockpiled with them, lmk how that works out for you (though since it would involve killing a lot of people, with guns, for the crime of wanting to retain their legally purchased property that happens to also be guns, I suspect I'll already be aware.)

[-] Tekchip@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I agreed with your factual correction. I'm not sure why you're coming at me so hot.

I will maintain that while their facts may have been incorrect the intent isn't what you seem to want it to be. Of course the op of the reply we're replying to is the only one who can say.

Also, yeah, you're right no systemic change has ever been successful ever so why try. /S

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
536 points (96.9% liked)

News

23360 readers
1832 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS