Police say there’s an active shooter in Lewiston, Maine, and they are investigating multiple scenes
Central Maine Medical Center said staff were “reacting to a mass casualty, mass shooter event” and were coordinating with area hospitals to take in patients.
You're viewing a single thread.
Just a nornal day in US
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.
Does anyone here believe this? Like anyone at all?
Well, my cousin's brother's sister's step-mom told me...
It's a very trying time, plz Bitcoin me your thoughts in my unverifiable time of need. 🙏
Of course, how does... One Meeeeeellliooonnnnn sound?
May I have just 1 Bitcoin please?
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.
Yah but not for maine. It's a very quite state
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.
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?
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.
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.
You can always die in more ways than you can imagine, tomorrow is never guaranteed, so make the most of today.
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.
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.)
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)/¯
No, it really isn't.
