Mountain Meadows, and Las Vegas. It is a fair comparison?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I’m surprised to see people hung up on the term mass shooting.  The comparison is an obvious one to me.  A bunch of innocent unarmed people were shot.  More injured in Las Vegas, more killed at mmm.  Both unbelievably disgusting both inbelievably vile.  

Getting worked up because someone critical points out the obvious, getting hung up on the term mass shooting, seems unreasonable to me.  

But whatever... I guess I’ll temain confused by the objections. 

Sounds good.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

I agree that MMM would constitute a mass shooting.  I guess so would the events at Waco in 1993.  My complaint is people defining a mass shooting when 4 people are shot.  4 people does not constitute a mass of anything in my book.

And there were quite a few more the 4 people shot at MMM, so I'm not sure why others objected to calling it a mass shooting. 

This is actually kind of a bizarre discussion and I do wonder why some are objecting to acknowledging that's what it was.  

Maybe "mass murder" would be the discription some here would like to call the MMM?  But most were shot from what I've read (not all though).

Edited October 9, 2017 by JulieM

[thesometimesaint]

6 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Meanwhile, the beat goes on with hardly a mention in the media. 30,000 + die in auto accidents, 80,000 + die in medical oppsies . And this link.

Weekend gun violence across Chicago pushed the city to 500 homicides since the start of the year, as 11 people were killed, four of them in a single shooting, and 29 others wounded in attacks across Chicago between Friday evening and Monday morning.

Chicago doesn't even make the top 10 list of American deadliest cities per population.

[why me]

11 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Shortly after the Las Vegas shooting, and reporters calling what transpired, as the worst mass shooting in U.S. history. The owner and author of the largest anti-Mormon website (well anti-anything not Evangelical Calvinism) took to the airwaves to point out and further the self promotion of his website and that the Mountain Meadows murders,  was the worst mass-shooting (killing) in U.S. History. He gave a lot of airtime, to this tragic chapter in Church history. It was indeed (Mountian Meadows), fair game. But he was claiming that it was ordered by BY, a fact never proved. My first comments was pointing out that it was inexcusable act that took place. But as he continued to decry the act of killing these people and the number, I informed him that it was not the worst in U.S. History. I pointed out that "wounded knee" and many other Indian murders by the U.S., in far greater numbers. I also pointed out that pointing to this as a reason not to listen to anything Latter-day Saints say. I noted that dismissing everything the U.S. has to say, or denouncing one's citizenship based upon n the past is equally foolish. 

Pointing out such truth was unanswered and caused me to be banned for a time. It is not unusual on this website to be banned for telling the truth. Having said this, I have no problem bringing up the MMM, as it was cold blooded murder. However this was the act if truly evil men, but it is not Church doctrine to murder, and what the Native Americans endured pales in comparison to MMM, and the Las Vegas murders. Evil is evil, and should be condemned, including the many murders done by the Church if those in Middle Ages. Not to mention the murders if Jews, and forced conversions during the inquestion. (Hope I spelled this correctly).  

Thoughts?  

I believe that the person who made the comparison has an agenda and he attempted to disparage Mormons in the process and with it, mormonism. It is the worse kind of exploitation when a tragedy becomes a way to go back in time to make a faith, ethnic group, and community look bad to score points. The person should be ashamed to make such a comparison. We also need to reemmber that it was a tough time for the Utah saints who just a few years earlier made a dangerous journey to the far west, losing many people along the way. Not to mention the antimormonism coming out of California. The distrust of gentiles and their intentions would be on the minds of many saints. No excuse for what happened at MMM. But the claim of being shell shocked can be made.

Edited October 9, 2017 by why me

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

And there were quite a few more the 4 people shot at MMM, so I'm not sure why others objected to calling it a mass shooting. 

This is actually kind of a bizarre discussion and I do wonder why some are objecting to acknowledging that's what it was. 

I think it is simply they are dramatically different in many people's minds and it adds confusion or rabbit trails to the types of discussions they are looking for about what happened recently.

A mass shooting that occurs today is generally out of the blue, there is usually little defense from victims, and it involves shooters whose purpose is not to protect themselves, but inflict terror. They do not want to hide their efforts and in fact want to do the opposite.

The MMM had people fighting back and took place over several days, the reasoning was a perverted self defense.

For those of us concerned with the why's of the Las Vegas type of mass shootings and how to prevent them, equating the two by labeling them the same is a waste of time.  For those who just wish to discuss mass killing events/massacres in general, the same label works.

Edited October 9, 2017 by Calm

[JulieM]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

I think it is simply they are dramatically different in many people's minds and it adds confusion or rabbit trails to the types of discussions they are looking for about what happened recently.

A mass shooting that occurs today is generally out of the blue, there is usually little defense from victims, and it involves shooters whose purpose is not to protect themselves, but inflict terror. They do not want to hide their efforts and in fact want to do the opposite.

The MMM had people fighting back and took place over several days, the reasoning was a perverted self defense.

For those of us concerned with the why's of the Las Vegas type of mass shootings and how to prevent them, equating the two by labeling them the same is a waste of time.  For those who just wish to discuss mass killing events/massacres in general, the same label works.

And, that's why I stated earlier that I don't agree with comparing the two.  But that doesn't change the fact they were both mass shootings.  Of course there are a lot of similarities but more differences between the two, IMO.  Thanks for your explainstion, Calm. 

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and how many of the MMM victims were shot?  How many stabbed to death?

I honestly have no idea.  Besides the manner of death though, i think that these kinds of 'active shooter' attacks need their own designation because the psychology behind such attacks is unique.  I don't see any benefits from lumping it in with other kinds of gun violence.

[cinepro]

12 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I agree that MMM would constitute a mass shooting.  I guess so would the events at Waco in 1993.  My complaint is people defining a mass shooting when 4 people are shot.  4 people does not constitute a mass of anything in my book.

I'm pretty sure the 70+ people who died at the Waco standoff died from the building burning down, so it wouldn't be considered as a "shooting."  Also, it was the result of legitimate (although obviously tragically mistaken) government action, so it would be hard to classify it as a "mass murder."

But once you've opened up the door to mass deaths and not just mass "shootings", then we have the Oklahoma City bombing (168 dead) and other such atrocities included in the tally.  Interestingly, after 9/11 it looks like the most tragic non-military human caused tragedy is the 909 people killed at Jonestown (which wasn't on American soil but was mostly Americans).

Edited October 9, 2017 by cinepro

[bluebell]

55 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I'm pretty sure the 70+ people who died at the Waco standoff died from the building burning down, so it wouldn't be considered as a "shooting."  Also, it was the result of legitimate (although obviously tragically mistaken) government action, so it would be hard to classify it as a "mass murder."

 

According to the popular definition of a mass shooting, it doesn't have to be murder.  People don't even have to die.  That's why the label is worthless as a delineation technique.

A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of firearms-related violence. ... Another unofficial definition of a mass shooting is an event involving the shooting (not necessarily resulting in death) of four or more people with no cooling-off period.

[Guest]

13 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I’m surprised to see people hung up on the term mass shooting.  The comparison is an obvious one to me.  A bunch of innocent unarmed people were shot.  More injured in Las Vegas, more killed at mmm.  Both unbelievably disgusting both inbelievably vile.  

Getting worked up because someone critical points out the obvious, getting hung up on the term mass shooting, seems unreasonable to me.  

But whatever... I guess I’ll temain confused by the objections. 

No one I have ever known, have ever justified the MMM, and I know of no one getting worked up over the comparison of the two; have you known of anyone getting "worked up" over such a compression of the two, or pointing out one is worst than the other? 

[provoman]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

I think it is simply they are dramatically different in many people's minds and it adds confusion or rabbit trails to the types of discussions they are looking for about what happened recently.

A mass shooting that occurs today is generally out of the blue, there is usually little defense from victims, and it involves shooters whose purpose is not to protect themselves, but inflict terror. They do not want to hide their efforts and in fact want to do the opposite.

The MMM had people fighting back and took place over several days, the reasoning was a perverted self defense.

For those of us concerned with the why's of the Las Vegas type of mass shootings and how to prevent them, equating the two by labeling them the same is a waste of time.  For those who just wish to discuss mass killing events/massacres in general, the same label works.

 

"A mass shooting that occurs today is generally out of the blue", ... MMM was an "out of the blue attack"

"and it involves shooters whose purpose is not to protect themselves, but inflict terror."" ... Those who attacked the Baker-Fancher emigrants were not protecting themselves. The motive could then only be to inflict terror and/or death.

"They do not want to hide their efforts and in fact want to do the opposite."  Interesting that you would create such a qualification in an attempt to distinguish two events. MMM was a mass murder which occurred via mass shooting.

Edited October 9, 2017 by provoman

[juliann]

The method of violence is somewhat of a strawman when the real problem is male violence. Nothing will be solved until the underlying reality is addressed. 

[Gray]

20 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Meanwhile, the beat goes on with hardly a mention in the media. 30,000 + die in auto accidents, 80,000 + die in medical oppsies . And this link.

Weekend gun violence across Chicago pushed the city to 500 homicides since the start of the year, as 11 people were killed, four of them in a single shooting, and 29 others wounded in attacks across Chicago between Friday evening and Monday morning.

Chicago is a big city, so pointing to raw numbers is a bit misleading. There are many small towns that actually have a higher murder rate per capita.

 

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

"A mass shooting that occurs today is generally out of the blue", ... MMM was an "out of the blue attack"

"and it involves shooters whose purpose is not to protect themselves, but inflict terror."" ... Those who attacked the Baker-Fancher emigrants were not protecting themselves. The motive could then only be to inflict terror and/or death.

"They do not want to hide their efforts and in fact want to do the opposite."  Interesting that you would create such a qualification in an attempt to distinguish two events. MMM was a mass murder which occurred via mass shooting.

Why would Calm even want to 'distinguish the two events' other than for the sake of clarity?  Is she trying to perpetrate a cover up?   Why do people keep acting like if MMM isn't labeled as a mass shooting then it's a conspiracy or something?  

I completely understand those who want to define all gun violence where at least four people are injured as a mass shooting, even though I disagree, but I don't understand the idea that if someone disagrees with the unofficial definition for what a mass shooting is, that they are doing something morally wrong.  It's weird.  The term mass shooting has no moral connotations.  

MMM can still be just as heinous, and maybe even more heinous, as the Vegas shooting, even if it's not labeled as a mass shooting.  The label does not suddenly make a horrific event more horrific.  The label has nothing to do with the morality of an event. It neither makes an event more important, nor does its absence make an event less important.

And just a P.S.-if the MMM members attacked the Baker-Francher party because they believed they needed to for their protection, then that is their motive, even if they were wrong.  Motive is the reason someone does something.  It doesn't have to be a valid reason for it to still be their motive.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

Chicago is a big city, so pointing to raw numbers is a bit misleading. There are many small towns that actually have a higher murder rate per capita.

 

If you consider murder rate per capita, I think Washington D.C. wins.

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, juliann said:

The method of violence is somewhat of a strawman when the real problem is male violence. Nothing will be solved until the underlying reality is addressed. 

I don't think anyone wants to touch this with a ten foot pole because no one has any idea how to change it. Focusing on gun control is easier.

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If you consider murder rate per capita, I think Washington D.C. wins.

According to this, it's St. Louis:

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/national/the-cities-with-the-highest-murder-rates-in-the-us/collection_5a789407-4d43-5403-ad56-7c47880bda8e.html#29

 

Chicago's murder rate is apparently comparable to North Charleston, South Carolina

[Glenn101]

24 minutes ago, juliann said:

The method of violence is somewhat of a strawman when the real problem is male violence. Nothing will be solved until the underlying reality is addressed. 

I did not click on the like button because I do not want to like that. I do not like that. But I also recognized the basic truth of your comment because I cannot offhand recall a mass shooting a female acting alone. It is a rare occurrence. Violence is something that I have always abhorred.

As this article points put (https://www.livescience.com/53047-why-female-mass-shooters-are-rare.html) most men are not violent but when it comes to violence, men are much more prone than are women.

Maybe this is fodder for another thread.

Glenn

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think anyone wants to touch this with a ten foot pole because no one has any idea how to change it. Focusing on gun control is easier.

I think it's clear that men simply aren't responsible enough to be allowed to own guns.

[bluebell]

Just now, Gray said:

According to this, it's St. Louis:

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/national/the-cities-with-the-highest-murder-rates-in-the-us/collection_5a789407-4d43-5403-ad56-7c47880bda8e.html#29

 

Chicago's murder rate is apparently comparable to North Charleston, South Carolina

It looks like that might be old data (from 2015).

Here's where i got Washington D.C. from.

[juliann]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think it's clear that men simply aren't responsible enough to be allowed to own guns.

This would actually be the logical solution if reducing gun ownership reduces violence. 

*it would reduce the rate of suicide by gun, too, since women don't tend to shoot themselves at the same rates as men.

Edited October 9, 2017 by juliann

[provoman]

57 minutes ago, juliann said:

The method of violence is somewhat of a strawman when the real problem is male violence. Nothing will be solved until the underlying reality is addressed. 

 

[Button Gwinnett]

I once heard or read, that Brigham Young profited from the MMM by acquiring the wagon, carriage, horses and money/gold of the Fancher-Baker Party.  But I've done an online search hoping to either confirm or deny this memory and can't find anything.  Does anyone have anything to substantiate or disprove this? But I did find references that much of their possessions went into the Bishops Storehouse in Cedar City.

I admit that I have read several books on the subject including Blood of the Prophets by Will Bagley so it may have come from his book.

Edited October 9, 2017 by Button Gwinnett

[Guest]

20 hours ago, katherine the great said:

MMM and Las Vegas is a fair comparison in the sense that they were both slaughters of innocent people and guns were involved (as was the Wounded knee massacre). Why people want to quantify and say, "this was worse than that" just seems like people with too much time on their hands. They were all atrocities, all unjustified and all horrific.

Very true, which is the reason why when he tried to make the comparison, that MMM, was the worse, I needed to correct him. His motive and his many followers who chimed in, was to suggest that it is Mormon doctrine, and Mormons who were far more evil than the Las Vegas shooter. He also wanted to suggest there is nothing any Mormon would not do, if asked by any of those we call Prophets. It is why reminding him that far worse events, got me banned. It was a case of "don't confuse me with the facts, I have already made up my mind". All of these events, murders, shootings are all deplorable acts, and no one should ever seek to justify them such sad chapters in our history. I was not even trying to steer him off course from his anti-Mormon direction, but trying to direct him to the truth. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I think it's clear that men simply aren't responsible enough to be allowed to own guns.

Are you saying this in jest? I spent eight years in the Army handling guns, twenty three years in law enforcement handling guns, and unless I am in Church or other places that prohibit guns, I am always armed. Although I live now, outside Atlanta, and in a thinly populated area, we have had four shootings near our home, including the death of one police officer, not more than 15 miles from our home. Sometimes I wear my weapon concealed, but often "open carry". I can assure that my neighbors and family are always safe. It is clear however that too many crazies have guns, and any device that can allow someone to make a similar-automatic into a fully automatic, needs to be banned, YESTERDAY!