A proposal. National Monument for Mass Shooting Victims.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: burdman30ott6

And those tragedies are a direct attack not on individuals but on society as well?

You still didn't answer my question. What negative impact would this have on Americans?

ETA: But a memorial for those that all they did was go to work on 911 is fine?

Drunk driving, medical blunders, violent crime... yeah, I'd say those constitute direct attacks on society, too.

I answered that question in my next post.

Officially speaking, there is only a National memorial to Flight 93. Though Ground Zero has the wall of names and calls itself a national memorial and museum, it is not operated or claimed by the national park service, thus it is not an official national memorial. Flight 93 stands out primarily because the Americans on board sacrificed their own lives to save the lives of Americans at the final target of the hijacked plane.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: burdman30ott6

More rhetoric. OK 3rd time..... how does this affect Americans in a negative way?

3rd time, can't help that you refuse to accept it, it politicizes the events. That's a negative, a very large negative.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
I answered that question in my next post.

Are you referring to Cecil the Lion?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: burdman30ott6

More rhetoric. OK 3rd time..... how does this affect Americans in a negative way?

3rd time, can't help that you refuse to accept it, it politicizes the events. That's a negative, a very large negative.

They are already politicized. Take that crap out and think of the people.

a reply to: intrepid

So, what justification exists that those people deserve any special treatment beyond that afforded to anyone who dies in a preventable incident?

Would calling for a Mike Brown national memorial be political or thinking of the person?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: intrepid

So, what justification exists that those people deserve any special treatment beyond that afforded to anyone who dies in a preventable incident?

Because it's not a random acts against individuals. It's an attack on the foundation of society. I would think EVERYONE would understand and get behind that.

a reply to: intrepid

Aren't you in Canada? Your info blob says so.

If you're in Canada.....why do you care and how does it affect YOUR country? Or are you just trying to stir crap?

originally posted by: intrepid
Because it's not a random acts against individuals. It's an attack on the foundation of society. I would think EVERYONE would understand and get behind that.

Almost without fail, the shooter has some manner of connection to at least one of the victims and/or the location... it isn't an attack against the foundation of society any more than drunk driving, serial rape, or throwing bricks off an overpass at cars is. It's premeditated act of violence carried out against happenstance victims.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Well I can't argue with that logic. Well I could but it would be wasted breath. The reader will get it.

Tony: Your post doesn't deserve a reply.

originally posted by: intrepid
The reader will get it.

Yep, this reader certainly understands your last post.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: intrepid
The reader will get it.

Yep, this reader certainly understands your last post.

I'm sure THEY can understand the difference between drunk driving and intentional murder.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: intrepid

Aren't you in Canada? Your info blob says so.

If you're in Canada.....why do you care and how does it affect YOUR country? Or are you just trying to stir crap?

You've commented in threads on Syria and Russia, Canada, and Germany. What do you care?

It's a global website. It was a suggestion. Since when are people only allowed to talk about whatever country they live in?

Good grief.

originally posted by: intrepid
I'm sure THEY can understand the difference between drunk driving and intentional murder.

Is it a direct danger to society? Are the victims of drunk driving any less dead than the victims of mass shootings?
ktla.com...
Why is this:

A woman suspected of drunken driving crashed a car into a crowd of spectators at Oklahoma State University’s homecoming parade, killing four people — including a 2-year-old — authorities in Stillwater said Saturday.

and different whatsoever than "A woman with a semi-automatic rifle fired into a crowd of spectators at Oklahoma State University’s homecoming parade, killing four people — including a 2-year-old — authorities in Stillwater said Saturday."

Is politicizing the incident via an around the clock exhaustive media circus, really doing anything at all for those victims? I've had this discussion with you before, so I know what side of the fence you line up with...
www.rita.dot.gov...

Alcohol-related highway crashes accounted for 13,365 deaths in 2010

www.cdc.gov...

Firearm homicides
Number of deaths: 11,208

So, which do we need to increase regulations and restrictions on, automobiles or booze? Where should we put that national memorial at, outside the liquor stores? Bars? Car dealerships? Perhaps we can meet in the middle and build the memorial outside the heartbreak hotel.

Death is death... unless and until we start accepting that and making moves against ALL preventable deaths equally, as well as feigning equal outrage at all sources of preventable death, it's all steaming BS.

I wouldn't complain about a monument to people killed in drunk driving accidents, medical blunders or any other way. Suggesting a memorial for mass shootings doesn't mean that no other deaths should ever be memorialized.

Ugh... nvm

a reply to: burdman30ott6

So you're saying that a drunk driver's motivation is to kill someone? Sorry man but their intention is to get home without getting caught. The intention of someone going out to kill people is to.... go out and kill people. You say that's preventable? How?

a reply to: intrepid

NO ,political correctness is what you have described. nuts who kill are isolated incidents,regardless of the body count.
AS long as we are trying to promote special interests, HOW about a monument for the military who have died from VA negligence?
I would suggest we send the victims MONEY, not some monument no one would visit or care about ,if you want to give them something ,let it be what they can use.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: burdman30ott6

So you're saying that a drunk driver's motivation is to kill someone? Sorry man but their intention is to get home without getting caught. The intention of someone going out to kill people is to.... go out and kill people. You say that's preventable? How?

I'm not saying their motivations are identical, but in many ways the drunk driver is a much more of a boil on society's ass because they're a lot more prolific and are making a conscious choice with a presumably healthy mind to do something which is directly linked to death and injury to others. Not sure anyone can argue that a spree killer has a healthy mind.

Mass shootings are not "preventable" entirely, but there are certainly measures which can be taken to dramatically reduce the number and severity of them.
-Gun free zones (in other words, all schools) are a magnet for them... I like the armed teachers idea, myself.
-Ban the chemical "treatments" for unchemically testable ailments, such as SSRI drugs, Ambien, etc. that are making people snap.. Good luck getting past the ridiculously deep pocketed Pharmaceutical lobbyists, though.
-Return to the past days in which the police were actually present to protect and serve.
-Actually follow through on enforcement of existing laws. This one gets glossed over (conveniently) by the antigun crowd... The jackass in Tucson, for example, should have failed the background test, but their assbrained sheriff gave him an approved status. That's not the law that failed, it was the stewards of the law who failed.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: burdman30ott6

.

-Gun free zones (in other words, all schools) are a magnet for them... I like the armed teachers idea, myself.

Now that our son is in private school, besides tuition we have to pay all sorts of "extras" and be involved with fundraisers and all that. I've always said that not only would I gladly pay extra to cover the cost of armed guards at his school, I'd pay even more to have them not just armed.... but ARMED TO THE TEETH.

originally posted by: hknudzkknexnt
Are you kidding? do you know why those sick #s are doing it? for a moment of #ing fame
you would be giving them immortality

Pretty much. It reminds me of attempts in the past to put alcohol breathalizers in bars so that people would be able to check to see if they were sober enough to drive. The real result? People getting into competitions to see who could have the highest breath alcohol reading.

Sure, some people could see it as a place where the victims could be remembered. Others would certainly look at it and say, "Let's see how many more names I can put on it."

I'm going to regret posting here....but......

National Memorials are those dedicated by the POTUS or by legislation of Congress.

As of this date, there are 30 actual "National Memorials" maintained by the National Park Services.

Each memorial is for things or people on a national level: IE World War II War memorial, Vietnam War Memorial, etc, as wars affected people on a national level.

Then there are memorials for individuals that had an impact on the US as a nation (presidents, civil rights leaders like King, etc).

There is nothing to keep the POTUS or Congress from creating another memorial dedicated to victims of mass shootings. One only either needs to proclaim it (POTUS) or have legislation passed for it (Congress).

Mass shootings tend to be on the local level, and memorials for those victims tend to be erected either on site or in the area. This is mainly because the victims are family and friends to those in that area. Not John Doe who lives in Heyhira, GA.

As the victims of these shootings are being remembered by those who knew them, I'm not sure I understand the purpose of a national memorial, unless it's a simple one that covers everyone without names: IE some art statue with a plaque dedicated to all those victims of mass shootings.

I also have to agree: it could inspire those nut jobs that go on these killing sprees. These people that are capable of killing large numbers of people (and children) are not exactly in their right mind. It could very well appeal to them to think they they will cause a large number of names to appear on some national memorial for all to see.