Official Mass Shooter Thread

[Rev. Rye]

Looking at Biden saying of gun violence “it has to stop,” I am reminded of Alan Clarke’s Elephant.





While it seems to be just a cavalcade of murders, it’s technically about the Troubles in Northern Ireland. There’s a long and complicated history behind what led to all that bloodshed in Belfast, and while most people making a film about the Troubles would have some characters fighting for either side and ultimately finding some way to pick a side, even if it’s just by following a character who’s either Catholic or Protestant and giving more weight to one side of the conflict, Clarke strips all of that cultural context away and shows it for what it ultimately is: a senseless bloodbath. We know nothing about either the killer or the victim in any of these vignettes. There’s almost no dialogue, and most of the scenes end with a long shot of the victim’s bloody corpse. The only real way we’d know what was even causing these murders was that we’re told that these are all based on actual cases from Belfast. 

Clarke had a reputation for making extremely dark and controversial films for TV, and one of his contemporaries said this about the film:
"I remember lying in bed, watching it, thinking, 'Stop, Alan, you can't keep doing this.' And the cumulative effect is that you say, 'It's got to stop. The killing has got to stop.' Instinctively, without an intellectual process, it becomes a gut reaction."

And this becomes more relevant than ever, with an epidemic of gun violence and mass shootings and a major party that sees this and doesn’t seem to get what the problem is.

[Irreligious Atheist]

Looking at Biden saying of gun violence “it has to stop,” I am reminded of Alan Clarke’s Elephant.





While it seems to be just a cavalcade of murders, it’s technically about the Troubles in Northern Ireland. There’s a long and complicated history behind what led to all that bloodshed in Belfast, and while most people making a film about the Troubles would have some characters fighting for either side and ultimately finding some way to pick a side, even if it’s just by following a character who’s either Catholic or Protestant and giving more weight to one side of the conflict, Clarke strips all of that cultural context away and shows it for what it ultimately is: a senseless bloodbath. We know nothing about either the killer or the victim in any of these vignettes. There’s almost no dialogue, and most of the scenes end with a long shot of the victim’s bloody corpse. The only real way we’d know what was even causing these murders was that we’re told that these are all based on actual cases from Belfast. 

Clarke had a reputation for making extremely dark and controversial films for TV, and one of his contemporaries said this about the film:
"I remember lying in bed, watching it, thinking, 'Stop, Alan, you can't keep doing this.' And the cumulative effect is that you say, 'It's got to stop. The killing has got to stop.' Instinctively, without an intellectual process, it becomes a gut reaction."

And this becomes more relevant than ever, with an epidemic of gun violence and mass shootings and a major party that sees this and doesn’t seem to get what the problem is.

I can understand both sides. Some see headlines about mass shootings and think, why the hell aren't we doing something to stop this? At the same time, some probably look up the numbers and say, well, only 517 deaths by mass shootings (2019 stats) in a country of 330 million people. Only 364 murders committed in the US in 2019 by rifle. I can certainly understand people saying screw the numbers, every life is precious. But at the same time, those numbers are pretty small. So small, that to some people, 517 and 364 can basically be rounded down to zero, and in that case, there is no assault rifle problem, or a mass shooting problem. It's all about perspective. Even though many may think it's beyond crazy, I can understand those saying, no more additional gun control at all, because of the slippery slope. Sure, the NRA has huge influence, and that's a large part of it, but I think the slippery slope is a worry as well. Is the government coming for guns? Not all at once they're not. The people who think that are being silly I think. But is it something that's probably going to happen over a long period of time, bit by bit? Perhaps. I don't think that thought is so crazy. I see what's happening in Canada. Gun laws continuously become more and more strict. There is never an end point where the government is happy with the gun laws. It always needs to go further. Some states in the US have already prohibited so called assault rifles. To me, that is "taking away the guns", so, I think it's already happened. So yeah, I'm not a gun guy and I've never owned a gun or even held one, but I can understand both sides, and I used to be pretty pro-gun control, but a lot of it comes down to perspective. Do we try to save every last life we can, or do we take the side of caution and people retaining their right to bear arms?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I find it both depressing and amusing when people refer to The Troubles in the past tense.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Looking at Biden saying of gun violence “it has to stop,” I am reminded of Alan Clarke’s Elephant.





While it seems to be just a cavalcade of murders, it’s technically about the Troubles in Northern Ireland. There’s a long and complicated history behind what led to all that bloodshed in Belfast, and while most people making a film about the Troubles would have some characters fighting for either side and ultimately finding some way to pick a side, even if it’s just by following a character who’s either Catholic or Protestant and giving more weight to one side of the conflict, Clarke strips all of that cultural context away and shows it for what it ultimately is: a senseless bloodbath. We know nothing about either the killer or the victim in any of these vignettes. There’s almost no dialogue, and most of the scenes end with a long shot of the victim’s bloody corpse. The only real way we’d know what was even causing these murders was that we’re told that these are all based on actual cases from Belfast. 

Clarke had a reputation for making extremely dark and controversial films for TV, and one of his contemporaries said this about the film:
"I remember lying in bed, watching it, thinking, 'Stop, Alan, you can't keep doing this.' And the cumulative effect is that you say, 'It's got to stop. The killing has got to stop.' Instinctively, without an intellectual process, it becomes a gut reaction."

And this becomes more relevant than ever, with an epidemic of gun violence and mass shootings and a major party that sees this and doesn’t seem to get what the problem is.

I can understand both sides. Some see headlines about mass shootings and think, why the hell aren't we doing something to stop this? At the same time, some probably look up the numbers and say, well, only 517 deaths by mass shootings (2019 stats) in a country of 330 million people. Only 364 murders committed in the US in 2019 by rifle. I can certainly understand people saying screw the numbers, every life is precious. But at the same time, those numbers are pretty small. So small, that to some people, 517 and 364 can basically be rounded down to zero, and in that case, there is no assault rifle problem, or a mass shooting problem. It's all about perspective. Even though many may think it's beyond crazy, I can understand those saying, no more additional gun control at all, because of the slippery slope. Sure, the NRA has huge influence, and that's a large part of it, but I think the slippery slope is a worry as well. Is the government coming for guns? Not all at once they're not. The people who think that are being silly I think. But is it something that's probably going to happen over a long period of time, bit by bit? Perhaps. I don't think that thought is so crazy. I see what's happening in Canada. Gun laws continuously become more and more strict. There is never an end point where the government is happy with the gun laws. It always needs to go further. Some states in the US have already prohibited so called assault rifles. To me, that is "taking away the guns", so, I think it's already happened. So yeah, I'm not a gun guy and I've never owned a gun or even held one, but I can understand both sides, and I used to be pretty pro-gun control, but a lot of it comes down to perspective. Do we try to save every last life we can, or do we take the side of caution and people retaining their right to bear arms?

I think a lot of the issue is that USians HAVE the right to bear arms in the first place. It’s what has created the fetishization of firearms, mythologized their history, and made shooting people seen as a valid method of conflict resolution.

If it were removed as a right and turned into a privilege, a lot of this nonsense would decrease. Not that I expect that would ever happen.

Boru

[arewethereyet]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/brya...t-76957179

Bryan, Texas, police chief: 1 dead, 4 hospitalized after shooting at cabinet business; shooter believed to be employee

[The Grand Nudger]

I think a lot of the issue is that USians HAVE the right to bear arms in the first place. It’s what has created the fetishization of firearms, mythologized their history, and made shooting people seen as a valid method of conflict resolution.

Unlikely, on account of how the the fetish and mythology is recent while possession is not, and we don't see shooting people as a valid method of conflict resolution.

Broken record, but, if we want to deal with our gun problem, we're going to have to deal with the gun problem we have.  If we want to deal with the political problem we have, it's not that americans have too many rights or the wrong rights (we have all the rights, for the record, not just those rights listed in that dead, dead document) - it's that half of our government is actively radicalizing their constituency towards domestic terrorism.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think a lot of the issue is that USians HAVE the right to bear arms in the first place. It’s what has created the fetishization of firearms, mythologized their history, and made shooting people seen as a valid method of conflict resolution.

Unlikely, on account of how the the fetish and mythology is recent while possession is not, and we don't see shooting people as a valid method of conflict resolution.

Broken record, but, if we want to deal with our gun problem, we're going to have to deal with the gun problem we have.  If we want to deal with the political problem we have, it's not that americans have too many rights or the wrong rights (we have all the rights, for the record, not just those rights listed in that dead, dead document) - it's that half of our government is actively radicalizing their constituency towards domestic terrorism.

What is a common cry of gun fetishists? ‘It’s my RIGHT!’. I’m not sure the timeline matters all that much.

And those people who shoot other people to resolve a conflict certainly see it as valid (I should have been clearer about that).

Boru

[arewethereyet]

There are gun owners who are "fetishists". My dad always had guns, as does my brother, my husband, and many other family members. I can't recall the last time my husband shot his pistol but I know it was target shooting at a gun range.

I used to have a pistol. I carried it with me when I lived in Arizona and had a 90 mile commute one way to school three nights a week. I carried it in case I was ever stranded on the Interstate. There were many miles between any civilization and cell phones weren't a thing. It was for my protection. I did go target shooting with it every so often so I was comfortable with it in my hand and was comfortable with taking it apart and cleaning it. When I no longer had that sort of drive I got rid of it. I had been trained to shoot by my dad and further trained in the Army.

Yes, there are those who state you would have to pry their gun from their cold, dead fingers. But there are responsible gun owners...they aren't the ones making headlines.

I would certainly like to see tighter measures in place for the purchase of a firearm. I would also like to see something done in this country as far as mental health care goes.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

There are gun owners who are "fetishists".  My dad always had guns, as does my brother, my husband, and many other family members.  I can't recall the last time my husband shot his pistol but I know it was target shooting at a gun range.  

I used to have a pistol.  I carried it with me when I lived in Arizona and had a 90 mile commute one way to school three nights a week.  I carried it in case I was ever stranded on the Interstate.  There were many miles between any civilization and cell phones weren't a thing.  It was for my protection.  I did go target shooting with it every so often so I was comfortable with it in my hand and was comfortable with taking it apart and cleaning it.  When I no longer had that sort of drive I got rid of it.  I had been trained to shoot by my dad and further trained in the Army.  

Yes, there are those who state you would have to pry their gun from their cold, dead fingers. But there are responsible gun owners...they aren't the ones making headlines.  

I would certainly like to see tighter measures in place for the purchase of a firearm.  I would also like to see something done in this country as far as mental health care goes.

Couldn’t agree more - I have no issues with private citizens owning firearms.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

The nomination of a gun control advocate to ATF provides clarity. The domestic terrorist wing will gnash their teeth and wail and rend their garments about it, because they know that the laws are already on the books - that it would be impossible to maintain the decoy of their rights argument if the ATF felt empowered to do the thing it's formed to do.

Anywho, I think there are at least four types of people who shouldn't be allowed to possess a firearm. People who want to kill themselves, their spouses, the political opposition, and children. Handily enough, this accounts for about three quarters of our gun problem.

We need to get the guns back into the hands of criminals, where they belong.