Colorado Grocery Store Mass Shooter

[WiseOne]

I find it interesting that during the time Trump was in office, these Islamic shootings stopped completely. Now he is gone and we have a much more Muslim-friendly administration at the helm - and it's starting up again. Anyone have a good explanation for this?

I was guessing that behind the scenes and also out in plain sight, Trump was implementing several very effective preventive measures. Which the Biden administration has likely reversed. But, I don't really know of course whether these things contributed. Just a thought.

[dualstow]

I find it interesting that during the time Trump was in office, these Islamic shootings stopped completely.
...

I went to check on that, and when i type in a Trump year followed by shooting(s) into wikipedia, it’s all shootings of police officers. Wow.

[barrett]

No political comment. Just dropping in to say that particular King Soopers was where I used to bike with my backpack to buy groceries 40 years ago.

[dualstow]

No political comment. Just dropping in to say that particular King Soopers was where I used to bike with my backpack to buy groceries 40 years ago.

Crazy.

[Maddy]

What happened to the Dems? When I was growing up, they were the party that supported Israel and were pro-Jewish. Now they are pro-Palestine, anti-Israel, pro-Muslim, anti-Jew.

Not only that-- they were the defenders of civil liberties, the champion of the working class, anti-war, anti-globalist, anti-establishment. They've done a complete 180 on everything that matters.

[dualstow]

When was the last time a Jew went on a shooting spree or blew himself up?

Rhetorical question, I know. Probably that guy who went nuts in Hebron. Long time ago. In the U.S. none come to mind.

It goes like this: never mind the hundreds of thousands of Uyghurs in hell in China.
Israel is an easy country to hate because the Palestinians only shoot "harmless bottle rockets."
By extension, all Jews are suspect.
Also, even though "the real Jews were black", the Europeans who call themselves Jews are part of the white oppressor race.
That's the current playbook. White enough to be hated by the left, not quite white enough to be liked by the right.
If you need more, it's probably answered in Jews Don't Count by David Baddiel.

[glennds]

Do you wonder whether mass shootings are just a permanent feature of American society and we just need to get okay with it?

The case for this:

1. Special interests outrank the public in terms of congressional priority.
2. The gun lobby is one of the most powerful special interests in Washington. The health care industry is another
3. A meaningful % of the public treat the 2nd Amendment as sacred i.e. the threat of someone taking or limiting their access to guns is worse than the nutjob down the street or across town owning one. We don't like words like ban, and certainly not confiscate.
4. Our health care system does not recognize mental health anywhere near being on par with physical health.
5. Our linear thinking society and legal system does not do well with things like mental health that cannot be quantitatively or objectively measured, or that may not follow any predictable clinical pathway.
6. No health insurance company wants to cover mental health in any meaningful way (see #5).
7. It's nearly impossible to ignore the harmless loudmouth yet notice the truly dangerous misanthrope, or accurately assign danger to either one.
8. The horse has left the corral. The useful life of a gun is basically perpetual, and millions of them are in circulation that there is no practical way to make them inaccessible to anyone who really wants one.

So if mental health is here to stay, and guns are here to stay, mass shootings are here to stay.

If this logic is flawed, please take me to school.

Of course, I have assumed that mental health is a common (frequent?) link to most if not all mass shootings in recent history. I guess the secondary assumption is that only a mentally ill person would commit a mass shooting.

[vnatale]

Do you wonder whether mass shootings are just a permanent feature of American society and we just need to get okay with it?

The case for this:

1. Special interests outrank the public in terms of congressional priority.
2. The gun lobby is one of the most powerful special interests in Washington. The health care industry is another
3. A meaningful % of the public treat the 2nd Amendment as sacred i.e. the threat of someone taking or limiting their access to guns is worse than the nutjob down the street or across town owning one. We don't like words like ban, and certainly not confiscate.
4. Our health care system does not recognize mental health anywhere near being on par with physical health.
5. Our linear thinking society and legal system does not do well with things like mental health that cannot be quantitatively or objectively measured, or that may not follow any predictable clinical pathway.
6. No health insurance company wants to cover mental health in any meaningful way (see #5).
7. It's nearly impossible to ignore the harmless loudmouth yet notice the truly dangerous misanthrope, or accurately assign danger to either one.
8. The horse has left the corral. The useful life of a gun is basically perpetual, and millions of them are in circulation that there is no practical way to make them inaccessible to anyone who really wants one.

So if mental health is here to stay, and guns are here to stay, mass shootings are here to stay.

If this logic is flawed, please take me to school.

Of course, I have assumed that mental health is a common (frequent?) link to most if not all mass shootings in recent history. I guess the secondary assumption is that only a mentally ill person would commit a mass shooting.

Are psychopaths considered "mentally ill"? Many of them function quite well in society with no one knowing or realizing that they are psychopaths.

[Xan]

Do you wonder whether mass shootings are just a permanent feature of American society and we just need to get okay with it?

The case for this:

1. Special interests outrank the public in terms of congressional priority.
2. The gun lobby is one of the most powerful special interests in Washington. The health care industry is another
3. A meaningful % of the public treat the 2nd Amendment as sacred i.e. the threat of someone taking or limiting their access to guns is worse than the nutjob down the street or across town owning one. We don't like words like ban, and certainly not confiscate.
4. Our health care system does not recognize mental health anywhere near being on par with physical health.
5. Our linear thinking society and legal system does not do well with things like mental health that cannot be quantitatively or objectively measured, or that may not follow any predictable clinical pathway.
6. No health insurance company wants to cover mental health in any meaningful way (see #5).
7. It's nearly impossible to ignore the harmless loudmouth yet notice the truly dangerous misanthrope, or accurately assign danger to either one.
8. The horse has left the corral. The useful life of a gun is basically perpetual, and millions of them are in circulation that there is no practical way to make them inaccessible to anyone who really wants one.

So if mental health is here to stay, and guns are here to stay, mass shootings are here to stay.

If this logic is flawed, please take me to school.

Of course, I have assumed that mental health is a common (frequent?) link to most if not all mass shootings in recent history. I guess the secondary assumption is that only a mentally ill person would commit a mass shooting.

I think you're likely right, as sad as it is. But I would quibble with some of your points:

2. As far as I can tell, the "gun lobby" is powerful because ordinary Americans join it in order to protect their rights. Or am I wrong, is it primarily driven by gun manufacturing companies? Doesn't seem like it...

3. While the 2nd Amendment is in the Constitution, it absolutely should be treated as "sacred" (with a secular/political definition of "sacred"). If you start ignoring it with a wink and a nod then what's next? If you don't like it, repeal it. There's a process for that.

I think the biggest one is 7. Any screening you put in place to catch the dangerous guy will have a false positive rate so high as to make it useless. You just can't pick out the one really crazy guy among million mostly crazy guys.

[glennds]

I think you're likely right, as sad as it is. But I would quibble with some of your points:

2. As far as I can tell, the "gun lobby" is powerful because ordinary Americans join it in order to protect their rights. Or am I wrong, is it primarily driven by gun manufacturing companies? Doesn't seem like it...

Well, according to Pew research, only 30% of Americans are gun owners. The biggest gun lobby is the NRA which is an organization of gun owners so I don't think you can say it represents the broader ordinary American public. In fact, if we used a Venn diagram, I can't see that you'd be suggesting the gun lobby and the broad public are anywhere close to an overlapping circle.
Many of the other lobby groups are industry related. Regardless, my point was that the special interests, including this one, are more influential than the rank and file public constituency.

3. While the 2nd Amendment is in the Constitution, it absolutely should be treated as "sacred" (with a secular/political definition of "sacred"). If you start ignoring it with a wink and a nod then what's next? If you don't like it, repeal it. There's a process for that.

Well said, my point exactly. Limiting guns is more than limiting guns. It's ostensibly limiting a right perceived as sacred, which makes it an ideological issue, much larger than literal weapons. Which is why it won't happen.

[glennds]

What happened to the Dems? When I was growing up, they were the party that supported Israel and were pro-Jewish. Now they are pro-Palestine, anti-Israel, pro-Muslim, anti-Jew. When was the last time a Jew went on a shooting spree or blew himself up?

Your comment speaks to the connection between racial, ethnic or religious groups and mass shootings. Here is a link that graphs race and ethnicity but not religion.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476 ... er-s-race/

Generally speaking it breaks down pretty closely to the breakdown of the US population. IOW there does not appear to be a case to say one group is disproportionately more predisposed to mass shootings than another. I think it might be more meaningful to look at age distribution. I can think of quite a few comparatively young <30 mass shooters (Sandy Hook, Columbine, Boulder, Charleston, Virginia Tech, Stoneman, Aurora), but not as many older mass shooters come to mind (Las Vegas being the only one that comes to mind). So if we're going to point at groups, it might be more accurate to attach age over ethnicity, race or religion.

[pp4me]

Are psychopaths considered "mentally ill"? Many of them function quite well in society with no one knowing or realizing that they are psychopaths.

That's like the question of whether a tree falling in the woods makes a sound if nobody hears it.

In a lot of these mass shooting cases there has been plenty of evidence that the shooter is mentally ill. In this latest one I read on FNC that he was known to the FBI, had assaulted another student in high school, and his sister even took his gun away two days before the shooting. Why she gave it back and/or didn't warn anybody is a mystery. Same with a lot of these shooters.

[glennds]

Are psychopaths considered "mentally ill"? Many of them function quite well in society with no one knowing or realizing that they are psychopaths.

According to Wikipedia:

Psychopathy Definition-
A person suffering from a chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior.

[vnatale]

Are psychopaths considered "mentally ill"? Many of them function quite well in society with no one knowing or realizing that they are psychopaths.

According to Wikipedia:

Psychopathy Definition-
A person suffering from a chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior.

1. Is anyone "not" mentally ill in some way? Or, suffer from some form of mental illness whether it be for hours or minutes in a week?

2. I'm convinced that many behaviors have been classified as "mental disorders" so that they can be cited by the professional as a means for the professional to get reimbursed by insurance for their services.

This conclusion came from personal experience whereby I was going to certain "classes" to modify a behavior of mine. But I ended up not finishing it once I realized that the main goal of the "classes" was not to help we participants. Instead, the main goal was to get the behavior listed in that blessed book so it'd be yet another thing that would qualify for insurance reimbursement.

[glennds]

Are psychopaths considered "mentally ill"? Many of them function quite well in society with no one knowing or realizing that they are psychopaths.

According to Wikipedia:

Psychopathy Definition-
A person suffering from a chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior.

1. Is anyone "not" mentally ill in some way? Or, suffer from some form of mental illness whether it be for hours or minutes in a week?

2. I'm convinced that many behaviors have been classified as "mental disorders" so that they can be cited by the professional as a means for the professional to get reimbursed by insurance for their services.

This conclusion came from personal experience whereby I was going to certain "classes" to modify a behavior of mine. But I ended up not finishing it once I realized that the main goal of the "classes" was not to help we participants. Instead, the main goal was to get the behavior listed in that blessed book so it'd be yet another thing that would qualify for insurance reimbursement.

I think we're in the weeds Vinny. The influence of reimbursement and profit motive in healthcare is a whole other worthy subject, but for the purpose of mass shootings, it's fair to say the kind of mental illness that would move someone to bring about harm and death en masse is more than the pedestrian types or levels of mental health impairment that might be widely present in society. At least I would hope we never see a day when violent psychopaths are the norm rather than the exception.

The sad issue to me is that it just seems difficult to even envision a solution for identifying or treating mental illness in a way that might meaningfully reduce the progression to the level of committing a mass shooting.
In my state, the 21 year old guy that shot Rep. Gabby Giffords and killed six others was ultimately diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.

[vnatale]

Are psychopaths considered "mentally ill"? Many of them function quite well in society with no one knowing or realizing that they are psychopaths.

According to Wikipedia:

Psychopathy Definition-
A person suffering from a chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior.

1. Is anyone "not" mentally ill in some way? Or, suffer from some form of mental illness whether it be for hours or minutes in a week?

2. I'm convinced that many behaviors have been classified as "mental disorders" so that they can be cited by the professional as a means for the professional to get reimbursed by insurance for their services.

This conclusion came from personal experience whereby I was going to certain "classes" to modify a behavior of mine. But I ended up not finishing it once I realized that the main goal of the "classes" was not to help we participants. Instead, the main goal was to get the behavior listed in that blessed book so it'd be yet another thing that would qualify for insurance reimbursement.

I think we're in the weeds Vinny. The influence of reimbursement and profit motive in healthcare is a whole other worthy subject, but for the purpose of mass shootings, it's fair to say the kind of mental illness that would move someone to bring about harm and death en masse is more than the pedestrian types or levels of mental health impairment that might be widely present in society. At least I would hope we never see a day when violent psychopaths are the norm rather than the exception.

The sad issue to me is that it just seems difficult to even envision a solution for identifying or treating mental illness in a way that might meaningfully reduce the progression to the level of committing a mass shooting.
In my state, the 21 year old guy that shot Rep. Gabby Giffords and killed six others was ultimately diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.

I may have an opposite perspective.

Our current population is 332,000,000. I heard today that 32% of the population are gun owners. That means there are about 110,000,000 people in this country that own guns. I'm seeing that 1 in 5 Americans suffer from mental illness. Let's assume that the gun owners are neither higher or lower than this. That means we have 22,000,000 in this country who both own guns (in many cases, multiple guns) and who are mentally ill.

It seems to be a miracle with that many mentally ill people owning guns that mass shootings are not happening every day.

Since so few of them do engage in mass shootings it seems impossible to either sufficiently treat or identify the 0.00001% or so of them that will actually be a mass shooter / killer.

I guess the job is slightly easier since it it seems to never be a female and almost always (as you earlier pointed out) is confined to a certain age range.

For me the sacredness of gun ownership is the direct cause of the mass shootings / killings. It is my understanding that England, Japan, Austrailia do not allow personal gun ownership and, thus, have almost no gun deaths?

Our country has decided that the costs of gun ownership - all the annual carnage caused by guns - is an an acceptable cost to uphold the sacredness of gun ownership.

Is it any different than our country accepting certain speed limits with all the human costs that will go along with it when we know that if we drastically limited speed limits there would then be correspondingly less human costs?

[vnatale]

Massachusetts proves that we don’t have to live with mass shootings
By Adrian Walker Globe Columnist,Updated March 23, 2021, 6:44 p.m.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/03/23/ ... _rss_brief


The facts here seem to bear it out....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... ted_States

The last mass shooting in Massachusetts was over 20 years ago. 7 killed.

Capture.JPG (28.36 KiB) Viewed 3521 times

[Xan]

Massachusetts proves that we don’t have to live with mass shootings
By Adrian Walker Globe Columnist,Updated March 23, 2021, 6:44 p.m.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/03/23/ ... _rss_brief


The facts here seem to bear it out....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... ted_States

The last mass shooting in Massachusetts was over 20 years ago. 7 killed.

Capture.JPG

But at what cost? Suppose a state completely stamped out "hate speech". Yes, it involved completely trampling on the 1st Amendment, but look, now we don't have to live with "hate speech"!

[glennds]

Massachusetts proves that we don’t have to live with mass shootings
By Adrian Walker Globe Columnist,Updated March 23, 2021, 6:44 p.m.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/03/23/ ... _rss_brief


The facts here seem to bear it out....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... ted_States

The last mass shooting in Massachusetts was over 20 years ago. 7 killed.

Capture.JPG

But at what cost? Suppose a state completely stamped out "hate speech". Yes, it involved completely trampling on the 1st Amendment, but look, now we don't have to live with "hate speech"!

I think you make a valid point which pretty much echoes what Vinny said earlier i.e. that every benefit (or right) has a cost and our country has presumably decided that the benefits of the present interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is worth the cost of mass shootings.

Although I will repeat my opinion that even if a majority of the country were interested in redefining the parameters of the 2nd Amendment, there are political and lobby forces that would make such an effort considerably steeper than it would have been once upon a time.

[Cortopassi]

Devil's Advocate (I own a gun).

--Who really needs a gun, other than police, armed forces and hunters?
--And for hunters, anything other than shotguns and maybe some kind of rifle for deer?
--How many mass shootings, murders in general and accidents happen yearly, vs. "actually protecting yourself" stories with guns?
--Is it all to prevent the tyranny of government, just in case? Like you and your neighbors are going to hold the town with a few guns and rifles and limited ammo while tanks and planes and infantry come in and mow you down? And you're lucky if you get one shot off?

Anyway, I have no solution. I have a gun for protection. I can with 99.9999% certainty tell you it will never be used outside of a gun range. Do I need it? No. Even locked away does it pose more danger to be misused? Probably.

So as usual I see both sides. Not trying to stir the pot here, just trying to reason out why I have a gun in the first place.

[dualstow]

Devil's Advocate (I own a gun).
...
So as usual I see both sides. Not trying to stir the pot here, just trying to reason out why I have a gun in the first place.

Because you like guns?
I have been deliberating buying a gun for as long as I’ve been on the forum. Longer. But, there’s a bodyguard app now, billing itself as something like the Uber of bodyguarding. I haven’t made use of it, but I like the idea that if i want to transport a large amount of gold or even make a trip to an uncomfortable part of town at night, that I can be accompanied by a huge guy that can use a gun under stress.
Meanwhile, I don’t have to be concerned about transporting a gun, locking it up, maintaining it, etc.
It might be nice t have a gun and I’ve enjoyed shooting in the past, but this seems like a more practical solution for me.

[Mark Leavy]

dualstow, moving his gold.

[Xan]

Devil's Advocate (I own a gun).
...
So as usual I see both sides. Not trying to stir the pot here, just trying to reason out why I have a gun in the first place.

Because you like guns?
I have been deliberating buying a gun for as long as I’ve been on the forum. Longer. But, there’s a bodyguard app now, billing itself as something like the Uber of bodyguarding. I haven’t made use of it, but I like the idea that if i want to transport a large amount of gold or even make a trip to an uncomfortable part of town at night, that I can be accompanied by a huge guy that can use a gun under stress.
Meanwhile, I don’t have to be concerned about transporting a gun, locking it up, maintaining it, etc.
It might be nice t have a gun and I’ve enjoyed shooting in the past, but this seems like a more practical solution for me.

Seems like a reasonable option. It also requires the 2nd amendment, in order for the big guy to have a gun.

[Kriegsspiel]

Devil's Advocate (I own a gun).

--Who really needs a gun, other than police, armed forces and hunters?

Me. And anyone else who might need to shoot someone, of course.

--And for hunters, anything other than shotguns and maybe some kind of rifle for deer?

Like tom said, ARs for hogs. A .22 for small animals. Something big for grizzlies, elephants, etc.

--How many mass shootings, murders in general and accidents happen yearly, vs. "actually protecting yourself" stories with guns?

I'd have to look it up, but I've seen a figure from the CDC that showed self defense was vastly higher than criminal use.

--Is it all to prevent the tyranny of government, just in case? Like you and your neighbors are going to hold the town with a few guns and rifles and limited ammo while tanks and planes and infantry come in and mow you down? And you're lucky if you get one shot off?

If you've been paying attention the last 2 decades, you will know that small arms and homemade explosives are very effective in low intensity conflict

Not trying to stir the pot here

[Tortoise]

All black guns that look kind of scary, like I could picture a soldier carrying one, should be illegal for civilians to own.

Civilian guns should be made with non-threatening colors and patterns, the stocks should be made of wood or at least look like wood, and the overall appearance of the gun should be roughly “Western”, like something you’d see in an old Clint Eastwood flick.

That is how we will finally put an end to these mass shootings. We must take action now. Why are we even debating this?