Four killed in Kentucky mass shooting before suspect turned gun on himself
The suspect tried to flee in a car but crashed into a ditch
That's only one of the two mass shootings today.
But there were 7 yesterday, and 7 the day before.
AMERICA -- THAT'S SIXTEEN SHOOTINGS IN 3 DAYS, killing 14 and wounding 78 others. THREE DAYS.
The issue is that a lot of the “mass shootings” are not terror incidents like the school shootings we’ve all heard about.
Take the Philly one, for instance. It was covered in my local media and I still don’t quite get what happened. It sounded like a fight miles away ended up in a gunfight in South Philly.
The type of gun violence that really reverberates in the USA is the school shooting type of incident. It’s a lone gunman who has no relation to the victims.
US has 43.1 gun deaths per 1m with some states having more than 100. Ukraine has 131 gun deaths per 1m during active war. Yeah...
But that's because the good guys don't have enough guns just yet!
It's always too soon to talk about guns after a mass shooting and there's always mass shootings. It works out well for the NRA.
I initially clicked the link to see if the suspect used a "bump" stock, or AR-15, only to slowly realize, Florence KY is right outside of Covington, just south of Cincinnati, and I have a bunch of family there.
Gun rights and regulations, the arguments and drama and bullshit, all pale in comparison to the loss of a loved one.
Guns don't only do one thing. Sure, they kill people. But they also destroy families. They make kids grow up without fathers, make parents bury their children.
I hope my loved ones are safe. I wish I didn't have to worry about my family and I being shot for nothing everyday.
Good lord, who the fuck downvotes this sort of stuff??!?
2A nuts
Gun nuts and the russian trolls.
Any gun nut feel like arguing for insanity that are US gun laws?
All you need to do is ignore science and reality and every other country outsider of the US and be convinced that undiagnosed schizophrenics being able to buy a shedload of semi-automatic weapons is necessary for democracy.
All I need to do is remind you that there's not a single piece of study that supports any of the arguments of the gun nutters.
(Also, just because it seems to matter to these nuts, I started shooting at 12 and have handled everything from old officer's pistols to shotguns to modern assault rifles, machine guns, grenades, mines, and even AA guns. Shooting is fun, yeah, but having fun isn't more important than making sure children don't have to live under the constant threat of their fellow pupils pulling out a semi-auto with a bump-stock.)
Edit after three days: yeah, not a Single scientific study of any sort from the gun nuts, but the usual "teenagers aren't kids and we don't actually have any issues and I'm not reading some study, muh rights, just a gang problem" etc etc etc etc
Project 2025.
And until the day comes when exactly that has no chance of ever happening again, minorities should keep strapped.
The shooter was a convicted felon. What law do you suppose would've prevented this?
Maybe one that removes all guns entirely. Other than that, not much.
If you really want to understand their perspective, consider an analogous argument involving some other fundamental human right, ideally one that you strongly support.
An easy one is free speech. Many countries without this right believe it is dangerous and stupid, using a litany of rational assertions and examples to justify themselves.
Consider all of the harm caused by people spreading lies and propaganda. The right to free speech ensures the most evil ideas and people can utilize our most powerful social constructs to attack the very foundations that a stable society depends on. etc...
Every right can be abused, and likewise an argument can be formulated against them based on their potential for abuse. Those that support some right typically believe the benefits outweigh the costs.
Hope this helps.
Do you honestly think everyone having access to a firearm is a "fundamental human right"?
Because... it very much isn't.
For more about those, you can read on
https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/human-rights
And here, in a listed format, and you'll very much notice the absence of being armed.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/universal-declaration-of-human-rights/
Let's take article 3 as an example of a fundamental human right.
Everyone has the right to life (and to live in freedom and safety).
Do you think the US would manage to better protect that right if they accepted the actual science on the issue, rhe one which proves people would be safer and there'd be less gun violence if reasonable regulation was instilled on a national level?
Hope this helps, because people like you need to be helped so we can help ensure better fundamental human rights in the US.
Yes I to can make up bullshit...
You're being emotional, and that's how shit laws get created. Your logic follows the same crap that anti-abortion groups use, it's all based on emotions.
And you having "shot guns" doesn't make you an expert on guns.
More kids die from drowning than from being killed at school by a massive order of magnitude. Why aren't we closing pools and hot tubs? Or you don't want to because them dying isn't really the issue to you. It's what was used to have them die isn't it?
https://www.childrenssafetynetwork.org/infographics/facts-childhood-drowning
Cry all you want big boy, the science is on the side of us non-brainwashed, rational people who understand the need for actual gun regulation in a civilised country.
Too bad the US hardly qualifies to that group any more. Third world level literacy rates, so many homeless that human shit is an actual issue in supposedly civilised cities, and firearms as the leading cause of death for children.
There's a literal mountai in the of evidence showing that all you need to do to start facing this problem is reasonable nation-wide gun regulation. Something everyone knows works and something that you won't find science against, because gun regulation being the answer is as clear to most people as is the fact that the Earth is round, not Flat.
But you will find Flat Earther crazies who won't believe in the science even when their own science proves that they are indeed wrong.
You're emotional. You get so angry when you're reminded that you go against science because you don't have the balls to actually use your own brain.
https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html
And you having "shot guns" doesn't make you an expert on guns
Oh yeah no, it doesn't bear any rationale to this argument. It's just there because gun nuts always default to the "you're just afraid of my pew-pew sticks, that's why you support gun regulation". Nah. I love guns, they're fun. But you know what I care more about than loud bangs? That children don't have to live in fear of some incel fucktards charging into their school with a pimped out AR15 with a bumpstock.
There's literally not a single peer reviewed study that concludes that less gun control is better, for anything.
But I'm sure the lack of science won't stop you, just like it doesn't stop Flat Earthers.
You're really just here to prove my point about the willfull ignorance of nuts like you. So... thanks, I guess?
What a stupid comparison. Guns have one purpose - destruction. You can talk about all the things you can do with guns, but their intended purpose and design is to destroy. The better they destroy shit, the more valuable they are. They're nothing without that. Pools and hot tubs are not that, and provide value to families and communities in other ways. Also, it's water. Literally water. And many areas have building codes surrounding pools and their safety. Mainly fences and safety covers. Homeowners insurance is also more expensive when you own a pool. Does that stop every child from drowning? No. Do we know how many times a child was saved because a pool was legally required to have a fence or safety cover? Also no. Also, there is no one running around with pools or hot tubs in their pockets drowning children en masse.
It's crazy that in America apparently you need to be a gun expert to know if you like to get shot on the streets or have your children get shot in a school. Ah ah aaaah, he said clip instead of magazine, he don't even know so his argument is invalid. You get murdered by a bullet from a magazine, not a clip. Gun nuts win again.
Guns now top cause of death in children under 19, surgeon general says
If that doesn't suggest to you we have a problem that needs to be solved, the problem is you, not whatever you want to nitpick to avoid changing the gun situation in the US this time.
I was at the UCSB shooting in 2014. I remember the surreal sound of gunshots. They sounded like nothing I would expect. So many lives and families were destroyed that day. The years later, a bar in my community was shot up, destroying even more lives.
I'm sad how often these occurrences are and that we've gone blind to them.
We don't have a gun problem, I promise.
So fucking sad
Well, at least this article is two days old. I thought it was a new shooting. Silver linings people!
3am...gang or drug violence...not a mass shooting.
A mass shooting, as the public understands, is one that is a random act of violence in a public place.
Not a drug den at 3am.
mass shooting, as defined by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), an event in which one or more individuals are “actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area. Implicit in this definition is the shooter’s use of a firearm.” The FBI has not set a minimum number of casualties to qualify an event as a mass shooting, but U.S. statute (the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012) defines a “mass killing” as “3 or more killings in a single incident.” For the purposes of this article, both sets of criteria will be applied to the term mass shooting, with the distinction that the shooter or shooters are not included in any fatality statistics.
Police responded to a call just before 3am on Saturday morning for an active shooting situation at a home in Florence, Kentucky.
You're right it seems. They should've said "mass killing"
Still weird that we talk about semantics though.