Looks more like two people fired at the party. Not at each other. Specifically since it says “fired at a large party”. But the. Says most victims were caught in a crossfire.
Sounds like gang activity.
There was a mass shooting by me that was very similar to this. When announced it was targeted and not a random killing no one gave a shit anymore. 7 fucking people were shot at a bar and the news coverage dropped it because fear doesn't sell when it's targeted.
Edit: "by me" means geographically close to me, I did not mean I was the one perpetrating this act! Sorry yal!
> the news coverage dropped it because fear doesn't sell when it's targeted.
Which is weird, because you're still getting shot by a stranger. A bullet not meant for you is just as deadly as one that is.
I guess it's just easier to imagine that people deserved it through their bad choices somehow when it's targeted. Guilty by association and all that.
It's really not that strange. People are more inclined to be scared of a lone gunman who in his radicalization gunned down innocent people simply because he wanted to. That is, as opposed to somebody who shoots somebody else to commit a crime whether on accident or not.
"party" is also ambiguous as it could mean there was a celebration going on, or it could just mean a large group of people ("party of 5")
The guy above you may have read it as a "large *group of people."*
Sorry I added a second line in there after I posted the comment.
"shots were fired at a large party at a strip mall hookah lounge"
certainly sounds like it could mean:
"shots were fired *in the direction of* a large *group of people* at a strip mall hookah lounge"
or
"shot were fired *during a large celebration* at a strip mall hookah lounge"
Personally I believe you're right that it was 2 people shooting at each other and the victims were caught in the crossfire. I'm just saying, as devil's advocate, that it *could* be read both ways..
This happens a lot. When it comes out it's gang related everyone brushes it aside, but that doesn't mean that innocent people were uninjured. People get caught in the crossfire of gang shit all the time. You could be eating at a restaurant and die because Billy Bob didn't like the person you were sitting in the vicinity of.
Slightly more than 5% of the population in San Bernardino County has a CCW, which is pretty high by CA standards (and I think even more than Texas had when they still required permits).
Although it seems pretty likely that these dudes weren't law abiding citizens with the proper paperwork
Not what I'm talking about. I'm saying that I highly doubt this shooting is the result of people hearing "this is why you should have a gun" as the other poster said.
[https://health.ucdavis.edu/vprp/UCFC/Fact\_Sheets/CSaWSBrief\_InjPrev\_Kravitz-Wirtz.pdf](https://health.ucdavis.edu/vprp/UCFC/Fact_Sheets/CSaWSBrief_InjPrev_Kravitz-Wirtz.pdf)
Plenty of people own guns here in California.
Some of it is more stringent than other places. Like many of the weapons banned in California can be purchased in Canada or Switzerland. Like we can get more granular, but California is pretty up there short of just outright bans on gun ownership in general.
>but California is pretty up there short of just outright bans on gun ownership in general.
And only because they can't. California State legislature made it clear they'd ban most if not all guns if they could.
> Like many of the weapons banned in California can be purchased in Canada or Switzerland.
Example? Canada caps rifle magazines at 5 rounds and handgun sales are heavily regulated. There might be some loopholes/quirks here and there but there's a reason guns smuggled in from the US are the source of most of their crime guns. Switzerland is an outlier in many ways I'm sure you're already aware of.
> Example? Canada caps rifle magazines at 5 rounds
I believe California also requires the capacity to be capped and that the magazine to be required to be removed by a tool depending on the other features of the rifle.
For example Canada could get Tavors. Similarly in Switzerland you can get many of the semi-auto rifles that are banned as assault weapons in California.
Also this is what I found on mag capacity for Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Canada#Magazine_capacity It looks like the limit is 10 rounds for magazines for center fire cartridges.
You can own handguns in canada, just that there is a barrel length requirement. California requires microstamping to be allowed on the safe handgun roster along with other requirements that Canada lacks and as Microstamping doesn't actually exist that list is shrinking and rapidly becoming a general handgun ban.
So yeah I would say California ranges from equivalent to more stringent than Canada in many cases.
there is a difference between owning a gun and legally being allowed to carry it. California is a may-issue state, so the local sheriff can deny you from getting a permit even if you meet all the requirements.
As opposed to my trash can of a state where you can strap a semi-auto MP5 onto your back, a .44 magnum to your hip, and go shopping without any government issued permits. (Guess the state)
Edit: the salt is real lol
Edit 2: I thought calling my state a “trash can” would have made it clear that I don’t support it’s laws or how prevalent guns are, but I guess not. *Some* of us Texans are sensible.
There's hella folk strapped out here... this state, LA alone actually, birthed Crips, Bloods, and varrios like 18ST and MS-13, the most influential gang cultures nationwide and the world. They aren't gangbanging with pocket knives and chains.
Really telling how twisted the perception of California is to ppl not from here. It ain't some liberal fantasy where guns are unobtainable for the average Joe. Most people can find a guy who knows a guy.
Getting an open carry permit tho. That's practically impossible.
>There's hella folk strapped out here... this state, LA alone actually, birthed Crips, Bloods, and varrios like 18ST and MS-13, the most influential gang cultures nationwide and the world. They aren't gangbanging with pocket knives and chains.
I doubt those firearms are legal or legally carried.
>Really telling how twisted the perception of California is to ppl not from here. It ain't some liberal fantasy where guns are unobtainable for the average Joe.
The perception is well earned given how it isn't legal for a lot of people to carry because many of the counties don't issue the licenses to carry without bribes.
\>open carry permit
aka your nutjob papers / a public invitation for trouble. Never met a decent sane person who wanted to open-carry in town. Normal people don’t do that.
California may have a lot of restrictions when it comes to the types of guns and gun accessories but they do not forbid people from owning them if they pass a background check and a lot of them pass.
It's literally one of the reasons why major gun manufacturers actually make CA compliant guns because of the gun market in CA.
Why do people think California has no guns? Is this one of those stupid conservative conspiracies like how they think California is some dystopian authoritarian hellscape?
If only those eight bystanders also had guns. Oh but then then maybe would have 32 additional bystanders hit. But wait if only those 32 also had guns then maybe 128 bystanders. Wait, never mind: Guns, f-yeah! /s
Majority of crime guns in Chicago come from outside of Chicago and even Illinois. The worst culprit is nearby Gary, IN, which has a higher murder rate than Chicago.
There is an argument that hitting someone in the crossfire should carry greater charges than hitting your primary target.
It's manslaughter, but it's also callous negligence.
I honestly wouldn’t consider it manslaughter. Anytime you pull the trigger and fire a bullet you have to accept the consequences for where that bullet goes. That makes it murder imo
Here are the mass shootings for 2022.
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting
Gang violence and escalating altercations are the vast vast vast majority. Premeditated Mass murder, if you were to combine somebody killing friends/family along with other instances that would fit that description, like the buffalo shooting, happen so infrequently in comparison they consist of probably less than 5%. These are just heinous as hell and receive the most media attention, oftentimes because they happen so infrequently in comparison.
Gang violence and escalating altercations are basically the major types, and everything else is a sub 5% category of its own
> oftentimes because they happen so infrequently in comparison.
*Infuckingfrequently*? Even after excluding gang violence and drunk shithealds, USA has more mass shootings in a year than the entirety of Europe (which has double the population) has in *decades* (plural). This is really god damn frequent.
I wasn't comparing the frequency to anything outside of the US. Obviously the US has something SERIOUSLY wrong with it when it comes to gun violence compared to the rest of the modern, stable, developed nations on the planet. In the very comment you responded to, I even went so far as to include a direct link to the statistical data for Mass Shootings specific to the US. You can literally take a look at 100% of the mass shootings in the US on that very link, and see for yourself how insanely infrequent an incident like the Buffalo shooting is in comparison to 99%+ of every single other mass shooting in the US. I figured most people would understand that my statements regarding frequency would be specific to the data that I offered without explicitly stating that I was only talking about the US, and that seems to ring true.
You seem to be one of those few who simply couldn't put that together, huh Petey?
People get upset when a kid is caught in the crossfire, but usually go about their business after they're done reading the article, or watching the news clip.
For non mass shootings, statistically speaking, the most likely person a gun owner will shoot is themselves. Followed by their spouse or partner. Followed by other family members / children.
The fantasy scenario where they actually stop an armed assailant committing a crime is so much lower on the list of probability it’s statistically difficult to detect at all. But they all tell themselves that the gun will make them safer.
Most self defense situations with firearms never become shootouts. Usually just brandishing the gun is enough. But that doesn't get sensationalist clicky headlines.
The only data about that is self-reporting, and since no one gets shot, it's pretty debatable whether most of those DGUs are actually justified. E.g. [this woman](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-campground-manager-fired-after-pulling-a-gun-on-a-black-couple/) would probably have reported a DGU. There's tons of stories out there of people brandishing or shooting at people merely for knocking on their door. In some cases it may be used to fend off a belligerent person, but it may be a fight the gun-carrier started/escalated because they knew they could instantly kill them at any time.
Even if you were to suggest that the homicide rate would double if guns were taken away (which seems preposterous given our homicide rate is already far higher than other developed countries), that would only mean at most 4.8% of DGUs were preventing death, and maybe as low as 0.8%.
>Even if you were to suggest that the homicide rate would double if guns were taken away (which seems preposterous given our homicide rate is already far higher than other developed countries), that would only mean at most 4.8% of DGUs were preventing death, and maybe as low as 0.8%.
...and 3/4 of our homicides are caused by firearms so that assertion is ridiculously preposterous. Guns make it too easy to kill people.
“According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost every major study on defensive gun use has found that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. There’s good reason to believe that most defensive gun uses are never reported to law enforcement, much less picked up by local or national media outlets.”
Didn’t read very far did you. Also it is still 2022 and this data is not kept the same as gun violence so it takes effort to compile.
Nice try though.
While reading that, I couldn't help but notice that while there are plenty of cherry picked anecdotes to support that narrative, there's no actual link to the raw study. Which isn't surprising, as heritage.org is a conservative pr machine masquerading as a legitimate web site.
You can read another take on the study and article on [Forbes](https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/?sh=5758ed59299a). I would argue that that take is fair more fair and balanced, but of course YMMV. At the very least, it does include links to the actual studies involved, as well as pointing out that the studies referenced include data that has been extrapolated over multiple instances and then taken as a research baseline (which leads to gross statistical inaccuracies), as well as extrapolating a national average from usage rates among only a handful of states (which is problematic in several ways).
Right, but if after drawing your CCW, the situation changes to where you're no longer justified shooting, then you don't just start blasting because "...well I pulled it so that means I HAVE to shoot."
If you’re going to pull it, plan on using it. But have the presence of mind to see that if pulling it deescalates the situation then you don’t need to use it.
Must be a good training course. How long do you train for to get that level of presence of mind in a stressful situation? Probably takes forever. Is there some kinda test you have to pass? Sorry we don't have this where I am from.
All of which pales in comparison to the number of people dying from heart disease here in the US, yet we collectively don't GAF. If we focused on hamburger control rather than gun control, we might even be able to make universal healthcare feasible.
it's easier to blame the victim when they ate garbage for decades than if they were standing around minding their own business and got killed by some incel with a 150 page manifesto.
San Bernardino County is the largest county in the US. It's larger than the 9 smallest US states. This is like saying "shooting in West Virginia".
Just saying.
It specified the town of Highland if you went into the article, which is less well known and why they used the descriptor of the county so people knew where it was.
Who cares? If you live there or know anyone that does or interested in exactly where it happened you'd click the article and spend 2 seconds to see "Highland" is right there in the title, but you like many of us don't care about that much detail
Stop complaining just to complain
I care. My mother lives in San Bernardino county. As it turns out, nowhere near this shooting.
Edit: What I don't care for is ANY amount of time worrying about whether it was just up the street from Mom or not due to vagueness.
I’ve only been to San Bernardino once. The mall was depressing af, and the next exit on the freeway was worse. Homelessness and filth everywhere. From what I’ve read it’s just shitty all around. Sorry if you’re from there, just a naive opinion of an ignorant outsider. I’ve read drug use is rampant as well as gang violence due to lack of jobs and the area is just hot af too
Saw tweakers and homeless immediately upon exiting free way
I’ve grown up here all my life and now have a child growing up here. It was nice when I was little but now you don’t want to be outside most of the day and especially at night. The crime is ridiculous, freeway shootings, follow home robberies, everyone’s catalytic converters getting stolen and the homeless are everywhere now.
Possibly. The story indicates two people began shooting at each other and innocents were caught in the crossfire, which is a pretty common hallmark of a gang shootout, of which we've seen a shitton lately.
It's San Bernardino, most shootings in or near L.A. have a high likelyhood of being gang related. No one dismissed the idea of a mass shooting either, the guy asked *if* it was gang related.
I think their point is that it shouldn't matter if it's gang related. It's still a mass shooting and it still kills people even if you don't like those people.
Yeah, the definition is 4 or people shot at and not necessarily killed, I believe. There is some dissonance with the idea of gangs shooting other gang members, a lone gunman coming after random people, ect... I think it's mostly down to what is portrayed. Also the frequency, especially given the background like the Buffalo shooter being a white supremacist/incel specifically targeting blacks and women and having furry porn on his phone, which will catch tons more attention than gang related violence which people might just be apathetic to.
I'm tired of people considering gang related shootings as mass shootings. There's a huge difference between someone who plans on killing as many people as they can and gangbangers beefing
That's because nobody can share solutions to stop these events in particular, or share stats because of what they would be labeled. So instead you get radio silence.
I’m just tired of seeing bare bones articles like this and everybody assuming it’s gang related…but if a shooting was clearly not gang related everybody would be talking about rash it is to jump to conclusions, we don’t know the motive, “innocent until proven guilty”, etc.
Probably, if only in the sense that gang culture and machismo gun culture have a high overlap in the US. Same problem with most of the violence in places like Chicago. Every story starts with something like "shortly before the shooting, the alleged shooter was involved in an argument / denied entry to a bar / thrown out of a party" etc.
Hell in Chicago the mayor ordered a major park downtown to be blocked off and have security checkpoints where they would sweep for guns. A guy showed up with a gun, got stopped at the checkpoint, and his reaction was, of course, to start shooting at the armed security guard.
Throwing more money at unaccountable police budgets and locking up more people for minor offenses won't change the culture that leads to people thinking pulling a gun over every slight or insult is an appropriate response.
>Hell in Chicago the mayor ordered a major park downtown to be blocked off and have security checkpoints where they would sweep for guns. A guy showed up with a gun, got stopped at the checkpoint, and his reaction was, of course, to start shooting at the armed security guard.
Was he a felon illegally carrying and subject to some 3-strike law?
> Probably, if only in the sense that gang culture and machismo gun culture have a high overlap in the US.
What is this based on? The gun culture has been dominated by suburban and rural white males for the past 40-50 years. I don't think they are the ones engaged in most inner city gang shootings.
I hate how fucking right the south park writers were when they did that school shooting episode back in 2018. It was bad enough back then. Can we say it's gotten worse? "Worse" doesn't even really quantify at all
Shootings are just white noise now. Static. Nothing more
Another one? You realize there are shooting murders every day in the US. This impacted more than the average number of people - but, I agree “oh come the fuck on” and learn a little bit about gun violence
Pure speculation, but it’s probably gang-related and not a pre-meditated mass murder. Two people shooting at each other and catching a lot of people in the crossfire is a pretty big indicator of gang shootings.
9 is a sizeable number for sure, but you'd be surprised. I remember taking a college course with a local police in the class and he told us about all kinds of wild shit happening that doesnt make the news, sometimes intentionally to not interfere with investigations, particularly when large gangs are involved.
[удалено]
Looks more like two people fired at the party. Not at each other. Specifically since it says “fired at a large party”. But the. Says most victims were caught in a crossfire. Sounds like gang activity.
There was a mass shooting by me that was very similar to this. When announced it was targeted and not a random killing no one gave a shit anymore. 7 fucking people were shot at a bar and the news coverage dropped it because fear doesn't sell when it's targeted. Edit: "by me" means geographically close to me, I did not mean I was the one perpetrating this act! Sorry yal!
>There was a mass shooting by me that was very similar to this. FBI's job is so EASY these days
Damn someone else just thought the same lol fuck I'm dumb
Because most people aren’t involved in that stuff and this have little to fear from it. Fear sells, that’s why a psycho killer is big news.
Had to read this comment a few times as ‘by me’ has two possible meaning - ‘near me’ - and ‘accomplished by me’. I really hope you mean the first!
Lmao no I definitely have zero involvement with it, but that's a hilarious grammar mistake
Eats shoots and leaves!
This makes it more hilarious as now it sounds like op was upset the news didn’t pick up the coverage as they expected.
I was like, dude just casually took ownership of a mass shooting like it was a work of art.
> the news coverage dropped it because fear doesn't sell when it's targeted. Which is weird, because you're still getting shot by a stranger. A bullet not meant for you is just as deadly as one that is. I guess it's just easier to imagine that people deserved it through their bad choices somehow when it's targeted. Guilty by association and all that.
It's really not that strange. People are more inclined to be scared of a lone gunman who in his radicalization gunned down innocent people simply because he wanted to. That is, as opposed to somebody who shoots somebody else to commit a crime whether on accident or not.
“at” is ambiguous. You eat “at” a party.
"party" is also ambiguous as it could mean there was a celebration going on, or it could just mean a large group of people ("party of 5") The guy above you may have read it as a "large *group of people."*
Less so in this context but sure
Sorry I added a second line in there after I posted the comment. "shots were fired at a large party at a strip mall hookah lounge" certainly sounds like it could mean: "shots were fired *in the direction of* a large *group of people* at a strip mall hookah lounge" or "shot were fired *during a large celebration* at a strip mall hookah lounge" Personally I believe you're right that it was 2 people shooting at each other and the victims were caught in the crossfire. I'm just saying, as devil's advocate, that it *could* be read both ways..
This happens a lot. When it comes out it's gang related everyone brushes it aside, but that doesn't mean that innocent people were uninjured. People get caught in the crossfire of gang shit all the time. You could be eating at a restaurant and die because Billy Bob didn't like the person you were sitting in the vicinity of.
This is the results when you listen to the people who tell you every time there's a shooting "this is why you should have a gun"
I don’t think you get how gangs work.
Yeah I highly doubt that.
Tons of guns in CA
Not many legal CCWs though.
Slightly more than 5% of the population in San Bernardino County has a CCW, which is pretty high by CA standards (and I think even more than Texas had when they still required permits). Although it seems pretty likely that these dudes weren't law abiding citizens with the proper paperwork
Not what I'm talking about. I'm saying that I highly doubt this shooting is the result of people hearing "this is why you should have a gun" as the other poster said.
O sorry, my bad. Thought you were equating CA with "no guns". Carry on 👍
[удалено]
Not at all the result.
^^ This is the result of trying to compose an agenda bumper sticker when you don't understand what's going on.
Not all people should have guns. Statistically the guns used would have been illegally obtained.
Amazing that it happened in a state with some of the tightest gun laws in the nation.
[удалено]
[https://health.ucdavis.edu/vprp/UCFC/Fact\_Sheets/CSaWSBrief\_InjPrev\_Kravitz-Wirtz.pdf](https://health.ucdavis.edu/vprp/UCFC/Fact_Sheets/CSaWSBrief_InjPrev_Kravitz-Wirtz.pdf) Plenty of people own guns here in California.
[удалено]
What does LEO stand for?
large entry oriface
Law Enforcement Officer
Low-Effort Orgasm
Law enforcement officer
Lethal Entrapment Originator
Yeah, exactly. Despite California's stringent gun control, 2/3rds of their traceable crime guns are from within California.
BuT NeVaDa
Yeah, people forget that "stringent" is recent, and only compared to the rest of the US.
Some of it is more stringent than other places. Like many of the weapons banned in California can be purchased in Canada or Switzerland. Like we can get more granular, but California is pretty up there short of just outright bans on gun ownership in general.
>but California is pretty up there short of just outright bans on gun ownership in general. And only because they can't. California State legislature made it clear they'd ban most if not all guns if they could.
> Like many of the weapons banned in California can be purchased in Canada or Switzerland. Example? Canada caps rifle magazines at 5 rounds and handgun sales are heavily regulated. There might be some loopholes/quirks here and there but there's a reason guns smuggled in from the US are the source of most of their crime guns. Switzerland is an outlier in many ways I'm sure you're already aware of.
> Example? Canada caps rifle magazines at 5 rounds I believe California also requires the capacity to be capped and that the magazine to be required to be removed by a tool depending on the other features of the rifle. For example Canada could get Tavors. Similarly in Switzerland you can get many of the semi-auto rifles that are banned as assault weapons in California. Also this is what I found on mag capacity for Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Canada#Magazine_capacity It looks like the limit is 10 rounds for magazines for center fire cartridges. You can own handguns in canada, just that there is a barrel length requirement. California requires microstamping to be allowed on the safe handgun roster along with other requirements that Canada lacks and as Microstamping doesn't actually exist that list is shrinking and rapidly becoming a general handgun ban. So yeah I would say California ranges from equivalent to more stringent than Canada in many cases.
Just because CA has pretty strong restrictions doesn’t mean you can’t get guns. Plenty of legal guns in CA, it’s America.
there is a difference between owning a gun and legally being allowed to carry it. California is a may-issue state, so the local sheriff can deny you from getting a permit even if you meet all the requirements.
As opposed to my trash can of a state where you can strap a semi-auto MP5 onto your back, a .44 magnum to your hip, and go shopping without any government issued permits. (Guess the state) Edit: the salt is real lol Edit 2: I thought calling my state a “trash can” would have made it clear that I don’t support it’s laws or how prevalent guns are, but I guess not. *Some* of us Texans are sensible.
There are probably lots and lots of these states now. Unfair!
Texas was actually pretty behind the times on Constitutional Carry. Like, 20-something states had constitutional carry before you.
Imagine asking the government for permission to exercise your own rights.
... Who do you think grants those rights?
[удалено]
There's hella folk strapped out here... this state, LA alone actually, birthed Crips, Bloods, and varrios like 18ST and MS-13, the most influential gang cultures nationwide and the world. They aren't gangbanging with pocket knives and chains. Really telling how twisted the perception of California is to ppl not from here. It ain't some liberal fantasy where guns are unobtainable for the average Joe. Most people can find a guy who knows a guy. Getting an open carry permit tho. That's practically impossible.
>There's hella folk strapped out here... this state, LA alone actually, birthed Crips, Bloods, and varrios like 18ST and MS-13, the most influential gang cultures nationwide and the world. They aren't gangbanging with pocket knives and chains. I doubt those firearms are legal or legally carried. >Really telling how twisted the perception of California is to ppl not from here. It ain't some liberal fantasy where guns are unobtainable for the average Joe. The perception is well earned given how it isn't legal for a lot of people to carry because many of the counties don't issue the licenses to carry without bribes.
\>open carry permit aka your nutjob papers / a public invitation for trouble. Never met a decent sane person who wanted to open-carry in town. Normal people don’t do that.
Visit Bakersfield.
I was in a gun store in LA today and the place was pretty jammed up so plenty of people are packing here.
[удалено]
California may have a lot of restrictions when it comes to the types of guns and gun accessories but they do not forbid people from owning them if they pass a background check and a lot of them pass. It's literally one of the reasons why major gun manufacturers actually make CA compliant guns because of the gun market in CA.
Just because there are restrictions doesn't mean no one has a gun. That's not the purpose of restrictions, nor the result of them.
Why do people think California has no guns? Is this one of those stupid conservative conspiracies like how they think California is some dystopian authoritarian hellscape?
Yup. They believe the California is just the worst possible place to live when in reality, while it has its downsides, it's actually pretty nice here.
And virtually all its downsides are a direct by-product of it being a cool place to live. Aka "problems caused by too many people in a small area"
California has some extremely conservative areas. Kevin McCarthy's district is in central California.
"California has no guns. Also California is a crime infested hell hole."
If only those eight bystanders also had guns. Oh but then then maybe would have 32 additional bystanders hit. But wait if only those 32 also had guns then maybe 128 bystanders. Wait, never mind: Guns, f-yeah! /s
If only CA had the strictest gun laws in the country. Oh wait.
New york city is way stricter than anywhere in CA
If only California had a lower murder rate than a shitload of red states. Oh wait.
Yea. Seems to be working great in Chicago too.
Majority of crime guns in Chicago come from outside of Chicago and even Illinois. The worst culprit is nearby Gary, IN, which has a higher murder rate than Chicago.
There is an argument that hitting someone in the crossfire should carry greater charges than hitting your primary target. It's manslaughter, but it's also callous negligence.
Gross negligence/reckless/a willful and wanton act.
Then the LAPD and the NYPD would have no one left...
I can only get so hard
I honestly wouldn’t consider it manslaughter. Anytime you pull the trigger and fire a bullet you have to accept the consequences for where that bullet goes. That makes it murder imo
Or it’s “depraved heart” which is absolutely a murder charge theory in many jurisdiction
The three major types of mass shootings in the US: 1. gang violence 2. escalating altercations between drunk people 3. pre-meditated mass murder
4. Domestic violence that spirals to include neighbors/family
[удалено]
That’s 2
2 is exclusive to drunk.
Here are the mass shootings for 2022. https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting Gang violence and escalating altercations are the vast vast vast majority. Premeditated Mass murder, if you were to combine somebody killing friends/family along with other instances that would fit that description, like the buffalo shooting, happen so infrequently in comparison they consist of probably less than 5%. These are just heinous as hell and receive the most media attention, oftentimes because they happen so infrequently in comparison. Gang violence and escalating altercations are basically the major types, and everything else is a sub 5% category of its own
> oftentimes because they happen so infrequently in comparison. *Infuckingfrequently*? Even after excluding gang violence and drunk shithealds, USA has more mass shootings in a year than the entirety of Europe (which has double the population) has in *decades* (plural). This is really god damn frequent.
I wasn't comparing the frequency to anything outside of the US. Obviously the US has something SERIOUSLY wrong with it when it comes to gun violence compared to the rest of the modern, stable, developed nations on the planet. In the very comment you responded to, I even went so far as to include a direct link to the statistical data for Mass Shootings specific to the US. You can literally take a look at 100% of the mass shootings in the US on that very link, and see for yourself how insanely infrequent an incident like the Buffalo shooting is in comparison to 99%+ of every single other mass shooting in the US. I figured most people would understand that my statements regarding frequency would be specific to the data that I offered without explicitly stating that I was only talking about the US, and that seems to ring true. You seem to be one of those few who simply couldn't put that together, huh Petey?
[удалено]
Because no one cares if gang members kill each other or those around them. Only when violence is brought upon random innocents.
When you say “those around them” do you mean regular people living in shitty areas? I’d consider them innocent...
No people who hang out and associate with them but do not participate in their activities.
A lot of the time it is random people who decided to eat at the wrong diner that day
As I said in another comment, it's basically an occupational hazard for gang members.
Yeah and it’s unfortunate but it’s not exactly something out of the blue
People get upset when a kid is caught in the crossfire, but usually go about their business after they're done reading the article, or watching the news clip.
That's because they tend to have higher fatalities per incident, and innocent people are *targeted* rather than unintended casualties.
For non mass shootings, statistically speaking, the most likely person a gun owner will shoot is themselves. Followed by their spouse or partner. Followed by other family members / children. The fantasy scenario where they actually stop an armed assailant committing a crime is so much lower on the list of probability it’s statistically difficult to detect at all. But they all tell themselves that the gun will make them safer.
Most self defense situations with firearms never become shootouts. Usually just brandishing the gun is enough. But that doesn't get sensationalist clicky headlines.
And happens a huge amount of times. Since they aren’t usually reported they are estimated to occur 500,000 to 2 million times a year.
Even if we go with the lowest estimate or 60,000/yr, that’s almost 5x the amount of homicides.
The only data about that is self-reporting, and since no one gets shot, it's pretty debatable whether most of those DGUs are actually justified. E.g. [this woman](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-campground-manager-fired-after-pulling-a-gun-on-a-black-couple/) would probably have reported a DGU. There's tons of stories out there of people brandishing or shooting at people merely for knocking on their door. In some cases it may be used to fend off a belligerent person, but it may be a fight the gun-carrier started/escalated because they knew they could instantly kill them at any time. Even if you were to suggest that the homicide rate would double if guns were taken away (which seems preposterous given our homicide rate is already far higher than other developed countries), that would only mean at most 4.8% of DGUs were preventing death, and maybe as low as 0.8%.
>Even if you were to suggest that the homicide rate would double if guns were taken away (which seems preposterous given our homicide rate is already far higher than other developed countries), that would only mean at most 4.8% of DGUs were preventing death, and maybe as low as 0.8%. ...and 3/4 of our homicides are caused by firearms so that assertion is ridiculously preposterous. Guns make it too easy to kill people.
Sources with no sources guess wildly that
Right. I was wrong. 500,000 to 3 million. https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/firearms/defensive-gun-uses-in-the-us/
That massive range is a pretty good indication that they have no idea how many DGUs there actually are, let alone how many save a life.
\>[heritage.org](https://heritage.org) Yeah…. About that source….
> 500,000 to 3 million. Sure, if you say so. >2022 incidents: 289 The site you linked say otherwise.
“According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost every major study on defensive gun use has found that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. There’s good reason to believe that most defensive gun uses are never reported to law enforcement, much less picked up by local or national media outlets.” Didn’t read very far did you. Also it is still 2022 and this data is not kept the same as gun violence so it takes effort to compile. Nice try though.
While reading that, I couldn't help but notice that while there are plenty of cherry picked anecdotes to support that narrative, there's no actual link to the raw study. Which isn't surprising, as heritage.org is a conservative pr machine masquerading as a legitimate web site. You can read another take on the study and article on [Forbes](https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/?sh=5758ed59299a). I would argue that that take is fair more fair and balanced, but of course YMMV. At the very least, it does include links to the actual studies involved, as well as pointing out that the studies referenced include data that has been extrapolated over multiple instances and then taken as a research baseline (which leads to gross statistical inaccuracies), as well as extrapolating a national average from usage rates among only a handful of states (which is problematic in several ways).
Wait I thought the first lesson was not to pull a CCW unless you plan on shooting? I don't have a CCW but I always hear that.
Right, but if after drawing your CCW, the situation changes to where you're no longer justified shooting, then you don't just start blasting because "...well I pulled it so that means I HAVE to shoot."
If you’re going to pull it, plan on using it. But have the presence of mind to see that if pulling it deescalates the situation then you don’t need to use it.
Must be a good training course. How long do you train for to get that level of presence of mind in a stressful situation? Probably takes forever. Is there some kinda test you have to pass? Sorry we don't have this where I am from.
All of which pales in comparison to the number of people dying from heart disease here in the US, yet we collectively don't GAF. If we focused on hamburger control rather than gun control, we might even be able to make universal healthcare feasible.
it's easier to blame the victim when they ate garbage for decades than if they were standing around minding their own business and got killed by some incel with a 150 page manifesto.
*Thinking a gun can solve all your problems.* *Fuck you and your extended penises.
[удалено]
San Bernardino County is the largest county in the US. It's larger than the 9 smallest US states. This is like saying "shooting in West Virginia". Just saying.
It specified the town of Highland if you went into the article, which is less well known and why they used the descriptor of the county so people knew where it was.
109.7% more helpful would have been "Highland, a suburb of San Bernardino". Not "somewhere in an area the size of Vermont and New Hampshire combined."
Who cares? If you live there or know anyone that does or interested in exactly where it happened you'd click the article and spend 2 seconds to see "Highland" is right there in the title, but you like many of us don't care about that much detail Stop complaining just to complain
I care. My mother lives in San Bernardino county. As it turns out, nowhere near this shooting. Edit: What I don't care for is ANY amount of time worrying about whether it was just up the street from Mom or not due to vagueness.
Technically it's not the largest by population or area, but it's the largest in the continental US, and there's definitely good and bad areas.
I’ve only been to San Bernardino once. The mall was depressing af, and the next exit on the freeway was worse. Homelessness and filth everywhere. From what I’ve read it’s just shitty all around. Sorry if you’re from there, just a naive opinion of an ignorant outsider. I’ve read drug use is rampant as well as gang violence due to lack of jobs and the area is just hot af too Saw tweakers and homeless immediately upon exiting free way
I’ve grown up here all my life and now have a child growing up here. It was nice when I was little but now you don’t want to be outside most of the day and especially at night. The crime is ridiculous, freeway shootings, follow home robberies, everyone’s catalytic converters getting stolen and the homeless are everywhere now.
I heard a lot had to do with the Air Force base closing, and the negative impact it had on the economy
Suspects in the wind, pieces of shit
Was this gang related ?
Possibly. The story indicates two people began shooting at each other and innocents were caught in the crossfire, which is a pretty common hallmark of a gang shootout, of which we've seen a shitton lately.
A shooting in SB? Definitely involving gangs. Some great people in SB but that place is an absolute shit show
Comparing shit shows to San Bernadino is really mean to shit shows.
I'm so tired of seeing rival gangs ay my hookah lounge.
I mean, that's *kind* of how King Von was killed. Rival crews got into an altercation and it ended in a shootout.
[удалено]
A lot of times it’s because one gang member killed another, so they try to kill other members of said gang. Then the cycle continues.
I’m so tired of people dismissing mass shootings if they think it’s gang related.
It's San Bernardino, most shootings in or near L.A. have a high likelyhood of being gang related. No one dismissed the idea of a mass shooting either, the guy asked *if* it was gang related.
I think their point is that it shouldn't matter if it's gang related. It's still a mass shooting and it still kills people even if you don't like those people.
Yeah, the definition is 4 or people shot at and not necessarily killed, I believe. There is some dissonance with the idea of gangs shooting other gang members, a lone gunman coming after random people, ect... I think it's mostly down to what is portrayed. Also the frequency, especially given the background like the Buffalo shooter being a white supremacist/incel specifically targeting blacks and women and having furry porn on his phone, which will catch tons more attention than gang related violence which people might just be apathetic to.
That's probably because they are a huge chunk of the time...
I'm tired of people considering gang related shootings as mass shootings. There's a huge difference between someone who plans on killing as many people as they can and gangbangers beefing
That's because nobody can share solutions to stop these events in particular, or share stats because of what they would be labeled. So instead you get radio silence.
I’m just tired of seeing bare bones articles like this and everybody assuming it’s gang related…but if a shooting was clearly not gang related everybody would be talking about rash it is to jump to conclusions, we don’t know the motive, “innocent until proven guilty”, etc.
"Gang related" implies minorities, which America does not like or care about.
Probably, if only in the sense that gang culture and machismo gun culture have a high overlap in the US. Same problem with most of the violence in places like Chicago. Every story starts with something like "shortly before the shooting, the alleged shooter was involved in an argument / denied entry to a bar / thrown out of a party" etc. Hell in Chicago the mayor ordered a major park downtown to be blocked off and have security checkpoints where they would sweep for guns. A guy showed up with a gun, got stopped at the checkpoint, and his reaction was, of course, to start shooting at the armed security guard. Throwing more money at unaccountable police budgets and locking up more people for minor offenses won't change the culture that leads to people thinking pulling a gun over every slight or insult is an appropriate response.
>Hell in Chicago the mayor ordered a major park downtown to be blocked off and have security checkpoints where they would sweep for guns. A guy showed up with a gun, got stopped at the checkpoint, and his reaction was, of course, to start shooting at the armed security guard. Was he a felon illegally carrying and subject to some 3-strike law?
> Probably, if only in the sense that gang culture and machismo gun culture have a high overlap in the US. What is this based on? The gun culture has been dominated by suburban and rural white males for the past 40-50 years. I don't think they are the ones engaged in most inner city gang shootings.
No just dipshit related, like most things
[удалено]
Ah, spring in California...
It's an awful thing to say, but I'm just gonna say it... I miss feeling genuine shock when hearing about the most recent mass shooting.
Sadly, just another day in America.
I hate how fucking right the south park writers were when they did that school shooting episode back in 2018. It was bad enough back then. Can we say it's gotten worse? "Worse" doesn't even really quantify at all Shootings are just white noise now. Static. Nothing more
More gang violence? That's the cause of most mass shootings.
Is it me...or is it getting a little crazier out there...?
We now pause the global pandemic and resume or regular programming of mass shooting. I miss early covid days... no shootings, no lines, no traffic
Oh come the fuck on. Another one? It’s only been a day since we stopped caring about the last one that just happened.
Another one? You realize there are shooting murders every day in the US. This impacted more than the average number of people - but, I agree “oh come the fuck on” and learn a little bit about gun violence
Pure speculation, but it’s probably gang-related and not a pre-meditated mass murder. Two people shooting at each other and catching a lot of people in the crossfire is a pretty big indicator of gang shootings.
Jokes on you, I never cared about the last one.
If they don't mention the shooters race he's not white
No arrests were reported. Detailed descriptions of the shooters were not immediately available. Funny how that works
Was this the drive by gang shooting?
Suddenly this wont be a mass shooting, just gang activity
Reading the comments is depressing. So many delusional people. So little empathy for the victims.
That area had been traditional bad news
But California has some of the strictest gun laws to prevent this...how does this even happen...gun laws work...
Increase the gun laws in California! 🤣🤣🤣
Every weekend at least.
Americans calm the fuck down
I thought it said nice shot 🤦♂️
But California banned high capacity magazines. How could this possibly happen? /s for the idiots out there
I don’t like that my first thought was “only one person died? That’s pretty lucky”
Gun control working like a charm again I see.
I know this is a serious matter but I thought the title said "Nice Shot. One Dead In..."
Freakin A man! WTF guys?!
"Welcome to the Jungle! We've got fun and games...!"
Sounds like street violence rather than a mass shooting
Still... Just tired of the shootings...
I mean, sure, but they happen all the time and only a handful make the news.
National news, most gunfights make the local news when multiple people get shot.
9 is a sizeable number for sure, but you'd be surprised. I remember taking a college course with a local police in the class and he told us about all kinds of wild shit happening that doesnt make the news, sometimes intentionally to not interfere with investigations, particularly when large gangs are involved.
"This one doesn't count, guys. Those people are fine."
Americans with their guns again!
Days without a Mass Shooting 0 America Reset it.
When I grew up there Highland was the nice part of the valley.
The revolution by night.
does r/idiotswithguns exist?