An honest conversation about mass murder events

[Sarah_W]

With the 4th of July, Uvalde, and the Greenwood Mall mass killings many people want to discuss this societal problem and find solutions to not only protect our children, but the public as a whole.

I know this thread will get locked if it becomes political so please do your very best to keep politics out of it.


The first issue in identifying a solution is understanding the problem. It begins with a failure of uniform definition. The FBI defines a mass murder event as 3 or more people killed. The media is inconsistent with their definition.

Mass shootings are the catalyst for people who wish to ban AR style rifles, despite the fact that 77% of mass shootings don't involve AR style rifles.

In my opinion a logical definition of a mass shooting should be:

1. 1 or more individuals plan to kill many strangers and 3 or more people are killed
2. Family quarrels and murder-suicides are not included
3. Gang violence is not included

[RVJim]

With the 4th of July, Uvalde, and the Greenwood Mall mass killings many people want to discuss this societal problem and find solutions to not only protect our children, but the public as a whole.

I know this thread will get locked if it becomes political so please do your very best to keep politics out of it.


The first issue in identifying a solution is understanding the problem. It begins with a failure of uniform definition. The FBI defines a mass murder event as 3 or more people killed. The media is inconsistent with their definition.

Mass shootings are the catalyst for people who wish to ban AR style rifles, despite the fact that 77% of mass shootings don't involve AR style rifles.

In my opinion a logical definition of a mass shooting should be:

1. 1 or more individuals plan to kill many strangers and 3 or more people are killed
2. Family quarrels and murder-suicides are not included
3. Gang violence is not included

Given your profile picture we know where your bias is at. No thanks not interested in engaging with an obviously biased original poster with some sort of agenda.

[Kenswing]

Given your profile picture we know where your bias is at. No thanks not interested in engaging with an obviously biased original poster with some sort of agenda.

Every thread in this forum is started by someone with an obvious bias. lol

[Caymus]

Every thread in this forum is started by someone with an obvious bias. lol

Probably not the ones about favorite movies :icon_wink:

[Keefelane66]

Reinstate the assault weapons ban it was a reasonable law until Bush allowed it to sunset now it’s out of control!

[Sarah_W]

Given your profile picture we know where your bias is at. No thanks not interested in engaging with an obviously biased original poster with some sort of agenda.

Actually, no agenda. I started the thread for one of our members who doesn't know how to start a thread but has strong opinions on the topic. I also promised to contribute to the conversation.

My bias is rooted in my knowledge of the Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and of firearms based my experience as an Instructor, competitive shooter and hunter.

What is your bias based on?

[Sarah_W]

Reinstate the assault weapons ban it was a reasonable law until Bush allowed it to sunset now it’s out of control!

What is an assault weapon?

[Blueblaze]

100% of mass murder events are perpetrated by lunatics.

We've had semi-automatic weapons for 150 years. But we didn't start having regular mass murder events until 50 years ago, when we emptied the asylums.

400 million firearms

10,000 lunatics

You don't need an "agenda" to see the solution here. It would simply be a lot easier to lock up the lunatics than the firearms -- particularly since the lunatics invariably announce their intentions beforehand on social media!

[RVJim]

Actually, no agenda. I started the thread for one of our members who doesn't know how to start a thread but has strong opinions on the topic. I also promised to contribute to the conversation.

My bias is rooted in my knowledge of the Constitution, our Bill of Rights, an of firearms based my experience as an Instructor, competitive shooter and hunter.

What is your bias based on?

yeah, everyone on the internet has “done their research” at the University of Google School of Law and are constitutional scholars and bill of rights subject matter experts. Maybe you are different, maybe you studied constitutional law under Professor Tribe or someone of his caliber but I doubt it. Maybe you wrote your PhD dissertation on the bill of rights, but I doubt it. Self appointed and self certified arm chair experts are everywhere on the internet.

I too am an NRA life member and certified firearm safety instructor as I have mentioned in other posts. The difference is that I don’t need to use pictures of myself with firearms for my profile picture. Responsible gun owners don’t need to prove they own or use firearms. Walk softly and carry a big stick unless you need a picture of you and a firearm to boost your ego.

[Get real]

outlaw lunatics...problem solved. oh yeah term limits for the dopes that can't get a real job.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

With the 4th of July, Uvalde, and the Greenwood Mall mass killings many people want to discuss this societal problem and find solutions to not only protect our children, but the public as a whole.

I know this thread will get locked if it becomes political so please do your very best to keep politics out of it.


The first issue in identifying a solution is understanding the problem. It begins with a failure of uniform definition. The FBI defines a mass murder event as 3 or more people killed. The media is inconsistent with their definition.

And that is the problem right there. That YOU have decided that the problem is a failure of uniform definition of the term "mass murder."

Here's the solution to that problem: stop insisting that's the problem. That's not the problem. The definition of "mass murder" doesn't matter a darned bit.

What matters is that people who shouldn't have had firearms, had them, and used them to kill people who they didn't have the right to kill.

That's the "problem."

[Sarah_W]

yeah, everyone on the internet has “done their research” at the University of Google School of Law and are constitutional scholars and bill of rights subject matter experts. Maybe you are different, maybe you studied constitutional law under Professor Tribe or someone of his caliber but I doubt it. Maybe you wrote your PhD dissertation on the bill of rights, but I doubt it. Self appointed and self certified arm chair experts are everywhere on the internet.

I too am an NRA life member and certified firearm safety instructor as I have mentioned in other posts. The difference is that I don’t need to use pictures of myself with firearms for my profile picture. Responsible gun owners don’t need to prove they own or use firearms. Walk softly and carry a big stick unless you need a picture of you and a firearm to boost your ego.

I'm trying to determine what your point is exactly. At no time have I said that I am an expert or scholar on the Constitution. I did say my bias is based on my knowledge of the Constitution. My knowledge is based on my study of the Constitution, speaking in public on the topic, my personal library containing about 70 books related to the Constitution, including a 1785 copy of Samuel Johnson's dictionary, the same dictionary our Founding Fathers used. Of course, anything I say on the Constitution is easily verified. Lastly, my study of law was at University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB) and I don't recall any of my professor's names.

My image shouldn't intimidate you at all. That just comes across kinda snarky.

I'm also a member of the NRA, CRPA, USCCA, USPSA, and SCSA. I'm an NRA Certified Pistol Instructor, Certified Range Safety Officer, Certified Range Development and Operations, Certified to teach Refuse To Be A Victim. I'm the founder of the US Women's Shooting Academy and am a competition shooter in Steel Challenge, Action Pistol, and Precision Rifle Series.

[Sarah_W]

And that is the problem right there. That YOU have decided that the problem is a failure of uniform definition of the term "mass murder."

Here's the solution to that problem: stop insisting that's the problem. That's not the problem. The definition of "mass murder" doesn't matter a darned bit.

What matters is that people who shouldn't have had firearms, had them, and used them to kill people who they didn't have the right to kill.

That's the "problem."

Of course it matters. Everyone is up in arms (forgive the pun) claiming that banning AR's will solve the problem when 77% of mass shootings are done by handguns, not AR's. How many mass murder events have happened so far in 2022? Everyone has a different answer to that. Why?

Every problem can be solved with a Cause and Effects Analysis (Ishikawa) combined with Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). Or, as we do in criminal law, we should look at Means, Motive and Opportunity. I see nobody even attempting to solve the problem.

[Trayderjoe]

I agree that a consistent definition of mass murder events needs to be set, and further that gang violence, although abhorrent, should not be included. This has nothing to do with the value of lives lost, but rather evidence shows that non gang related mass shootings are more widely reported by the media and for longer periods of time.Consider too that people on this board seem to invest more of their time posting on these sensationalized murders versus the weekly killings in Chicago, or the loss of 380 people per day from excessive alcohol per the CDC (link (https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-deaths.html)), or “necking it down” to the 32 alcohol related drunk driving deaths per day reported by the NHTSA (link (https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving))

Another thing that needs to be done is to define mental illness. Does it include people with little to no socialization skills? Does it include pure evil? How are these types of people treated or managed? Are we self aware enough to recognize that “Nintendo babysitters” may be a contributory cause to lack of socialization skills?

Why is it that we continue to hear after a tragic event that these mass shooters left social media posts, or told people about intended violence, prior to the shootings? What can be done to facilitate reporting?

It has been suggested that we take away “the prize” of attention that may be driving copycat killers. Why is this so hard to do?

The focus needs to be on identifying the underlying causes in OUR society that trigger these shooters and then try to fix those causes. The waters get muddied by those who would compare countries since no country operates in a vacuum and such comparisons ignore the differences in cultures and their effects on societal pressures.

Lastly, we need to go back to enforcing the law and holding people accountable for their actions. You choose to do the crime, then be prepared to do the time.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Okay so let's establish that "Mass Shooting" is no fewer than 5 victims, at least one of them must be a stranger to the others, none of them should be undocumented immigrants, and none of them should be pregnant females.

That's still one person who shouldn't have had a firearm, having one, and using it to kill people. And THAT one person is the only "problem" that needs to be solved.

[jimbomaybe]

And that is the problem right there. That YOU have decided that the problem is a failure of uniform definition of the term "mass murder."

Here's the solution to that problem: stop insisting that's the problem. That's not the problem. The definition of "mass murder" doesn't matter a darned bit.

What matters is that people who shouldn't have had firearms, had them, and used them to kill people who they didn't have the right to kill.

That's the "problem."
In any discussion you have to have a frame of reference, define the terms, that's what language is all about otherwise I'am talking about apple's you are talking about oranges without the possibility of communication. Sociological factors are the root of the problem. Fifty years ago semi auto surplus military weapons were cheep, abundant, and very easy to acquire and mass shooting were very rare. We are swimming in a sea of information with no emphasis on critical thinking . Its very easy to find all manner of information that will support, reinforce ANY idea we care to have , you always find what you are looking for, if not the real article a reason or excuse that will satisfy our held opinions. The result is any "idea" has as much merit as it has popular appeal. What has changed? Then if you had the opinion that something like a "zombie apocalypse" was possible, that a reasonable explanation for a missing air liner was alien abduction , that you could change your gender you would rightfully be considered delusional and be treated as such. Our society is becoming less and less stable.

[jswirs]

With the 4th of July, Uvalde, and the Greenwood Mall mass killings many people want to discuss this societal problem and find solutions to not only protect our children, but the public as a whole.

I know this thread will get locked if it becomes political so please do your very best to keep politics out of it.


The first issue in identifying a solution is understanding the problem. It begins with a failure of uniform definition. The FBI defines a mass murder event as 3 or more people killed. The media is inconsistent with their definition.

Mass shootings are the catalyst for people who wish to ban AR style rifles, despite the fact that 77% of mass shootings don't involve AR style rifles.

In my opinion a logical definition of a mass shooting should be:

1. 1 or more individuals plan to kill many strangers and 3 or more people are killed
2. Family quarrels and murder-suicides are not included
3. Gang violence is not included
I always enjoy reading your post, I respect your knowledge and admire your goals in helping others to protect themselves. But I have to tell you regardless of the definition of "mass murder", the problem, and I'm speaking here about young men committing mass murders, as I see it, stems from the lack of parental guidance, or, breakdown of family values. You do not need a search warrant to inspect your child's bedroom. If that were done Columbine would never have happened. Like so many others, my wife (now deceased) and I busted our butts to put our 2 children through college and give them a head start in life, all the while giving good examples of living a moral life. IMHO, many parents today need to re-prioritize their lifestyle and focus on their children rather than accumulating more "stuff". "You preach a better sermon with your life than you do with your lips".

[Blackbird45]

I do have a gun, but I do not take one position or another on firearms. There is no doubt in the United States we have a problem with mass shootings. Now one side wants to stop the sales of semiautomatics and the other side stands for the right to bear arms and to weed out the mentally ill. I would agree with the right to bear arms, except there is no way to know who is not fit to own a weapon. There is one more problem, yesterday here in Florida and 18-year-old shot and killed his 17-year-old friend by accident. There are too many of these incidents like this every year.

[Sarah_W]

Okay so let's establish that "Mass Shooting" is no fewer than 5 victims, at least one of them must be a stranger to the others, none of them should be undocumented immigrants, and none of them should be pregnant females.

That's still one person who shouldn't have had a firearm, having one, and using it to kill people. And THAT one person is the only "problem" that needs to be solved.

The media, in my opinion, is controlling the narrative and therefore public opinion. Because a lack of a proper definition of a mass shooting, those who are keeping track with databases count every shooting where 3 people are shot and the circumstance doesn't matter.

1. A couple of days ago four teen agers at Cutler Manor Apartments in Miami were shot in a drive-by shooting. Authorities think the shooter(s) were trying to shoot a teen and also struck three other teen agers. None died and all were treated at the hospital. This event is listed as a mass shooting in the databases who collect the data and is being counted as another mass shooting. Barely a blip in the news. Four inured.

2. 3 days ago in Fairbanks, Alaska a 15 year old boy shot and killed three of his siblings 5, 8, and 17 and killed himself. Murder suicide. This event is listed as a mass shooting in the databases who collect the data and is being counted as another mass shooting.Barely a blip in the news. Four dead

3. The Greenwood Mall shooter killed three people and wounded one. A young girl also was injured by shrapnel. The media frenzy was and is still off the charts.

All three of these events are listed in the databases that track mass shootings. In my opinion only #3 should be considered a mass shooting. The motives are very different, the planning is very different. The method of shootings were very different.

In #1 and #2 the victims are known to the shooter, they were targeted because of who they were to the shooter and shot with handguns. There was something wrong in the relationship and motive. #3 was purely indiscriminate with the purpose of shooting as many strangers as possible. The planning was very different.

These shootings are not equal and should not be counted to artificially escalate numbers to instill fear in the public and drive a narrative that a certain type of weapon should be removed from the entire population.

[Quixote]

When I first read the title of this thread, my initial thought was 'I don't think so.'

Now, having read two pages of comments on the subject, my thought is 'I don't think so.'

[me4vt]

Agreed! Guns harm no one, it’s the person with the Gun and the intent to cause harm. Your analogy is spot on!

[Bridget Staunton]

Thank you

[Bay Kid]

I see 2 major reasons, among many others. Drugs, mostly legal prescribed drugs to control our kids. Hollywood, always killing people. Just watch Mayans on FX. They kill many people every show.

[Sarah_W]

I always enjoy reading your post, I respect your knowledge and admire your goals in helping others to protect themselves. But I have to tell you regardless of the definition of "mass murder", the problem, and I'm speaking here about young men committing mass murders, as I see it, stems from the lack of parental guidance, or, breakdown of family values. You do not need a search warrant to inspect your child's bedroom. If that were done Columbine would never have happened. Like so many others, my wife (now deceased) and I busted our butts to put our 2 children through college and give them a head start in life, all the while giving good examples of living a moral life. IMHO, many parents today need to re-prioritize their lifestyle and focus on their children rather than accumulating more "stuff". "You preach a better sermon with your life than you do with your lips".

Exactly. A strong family unit makes a huge difference.

[ThirdOfFive]

Given your profile picture we know where your bias is at. No thanks not interested in engaging with an obviously biased original poster with some sort of agenda.
Attempting to set a definition that everyone can agree on is not bias. It is nothing more than plain common sense. How can there be a discussion if everyone has their own definition of what is being discussed?

[Sarah_W]

When I first read the title of this thread, my initial thought was 'I don't think so.'

Now, having read two pages of comments on the subject, my thought is 'I don't think so.'

Why not? The prerequisite of having an honest conversation is to actually be honest. There are so many flaws in the national conversation regarding mass shootings that I fear we will never solve the problem, merely putting bandaids on a severed limb will not save the life. Misdirecting the conversation will not solve mass shootings. We have a lot of very smart people in our society and nobody seems to actually be trying to understand the problem. Where is the expert team of psychologists and forensic experts dismantling the events to determine why the event happened in the first place and therefore create a plan to address it?

[Larchap49]

I agree that a consistent definition of mass murder events needs to be set, and further that gang violence, although abhorrent, should not be included. This has nothing to do with the value of lives lost, but rather evidence shows that non gang related mass shootings are more widely reported by the media and for longer periods of time.Consider too that people on this board seem to invest more of their time posting on these sensationalized murders versus the weekly killings in Chicago, or the loss of 380 people per day from excessive alcohol per the CDC (link (https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-deaths.html)), or “necking it down” to the 32 alcohol related drunk driving deaths per day reported by the NHTSA (link (https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving))

Another thing that needs to be done is to define mental illness. Does it include people with little to no socialization skills? Does it include pure evil? How are these types of people treated or managed? Are we self aware enough to recognize that “Nintendo babysitters” may be a contributory cause to lack of socialization skills?

Why is it that we continue to hear after a tragic event that these mass shooters left social media posts, or told people about intended violence, prior to the shootings? What can be done to facilitate reporting?

It has been suggested that we take away “the prize” of attention that may be driving copycat killers. Why is this so hard to do?

The focus needs to be on identifying the underlying causes in OUR society that trigger these shooters and then try to fix those causes. The waters get muddied by those who would compare countries since no country operates in a vacuum and such comparisons ignore the differences in cultures and their effects on societal pressures.

Lastly, we need to go back to enforcing the law and holding people accountable for their actions. You choose to do the crime, then be prepared to do the time.

So very very well stated but so against the reigning authority.

[ThirdOfFive]

The media, in my opinion, is controlling the narrative and therefore public opinion. Because a lack of a proper definition of a mass shooting, those who are keeping track with databases count every shooting where 3 people are shot and the circumstance doesn't matter.

1. A couple of days ago four teen agers at Cutler Manor Apartments in Miami were shot in a drive-by shooting. Authorities think the shooter(s) were trying to shoot a teen and also struck three other teen agers. None died and all were treated at the hospital. This event is listed as a mass shooting in the databases who collect the data and is being counted as another mass shooting. Barely a blip in the news. Four inured.

2. 3 days ago in Fairbanks, Alaska a 15 year old boy shot and killed three of his siblings 5, 8, and 17 and killed himself. Murder suicide. This event is listed as a mass shooting in the databases who collect the data and is being counted as another mass shooting.Barely a blip in the news. Four dead

3. The Greenwood Mall shooter killed three people and wounded one. A young girl also was injured by shrapnel. The media frenzy was and is still off the charts.

All three of these events are listed in the databases that track mass shootings. In my opinion only #3 should be considered a mass shooting. The motives are very different, the planning is very different. The method of shootings were very different.

In #1 and #2 the victims are known to the shooter, they were targeted because of who they were to the shooter and shot with handguns. There was something wrong in the relationship and motive. #3 was purely indiscriminate with the purpose of shooting as many strangers as possible. The planning was very different.

These shootings are not equal and should not be counted to artificially escalate numbers to instill fear in the public and drive a narrative that a certain type of weapon should be removed from the entire population.
The above post is an excellent definition of the problem with this entire discussion. As an attorney friend of mine used to say; "everyone is entitled to their own opinion. NO one is entitled to their own facts". When people cherry-pick data in order to support agendae, whatever their particular agenda might be, you don't get a reasoned debate. You get, essentially, chaos.

The example above is merely one of several that point out the fundamental dishonesty of this debate, as I've seen it, over the years. Others include:

1. Counting the perpetrator, if he or she is killed in the process, as a "victim". The logic of doing that escapes me. All it does, is pad the number of total victims.

2. The vast majority of these killings are done, not with AR - style rifles, but with HANDGUNS. Yet the proponents of stricter controls on guns lump those numbers into their argument in favor of banning AR - style rifles when logic dictates that, considering that handguns kill far more, they SHOULD be out to ban handguns. But they're not. The inescapable conclusion is that, even if all semi-auto rifles were somehow made to vanish tomorrow, it would decrease the number of these deaths by maybe 1/4, if that. Again, the logic of that escapes me.

3. Study after study indicates that many (most?) of these AR-15 - toting macho killer types are COPYCATS. They see the notoriety that previous shooters have gained with their bada$$ guns that everybody hates and decide to try for an even greater negative splash. So they buy, borrow or steal an AR-15 and go to work. Numbers are all over the board but I've seen those numbers at anywhere from 40% to 75% or more. What would the result be if, instead of splashing the gory details on every medium possible, these shootings were reported about the way we report stock-market numbers? The INFORMATION would still be out there, but the incentive for copycat would not be. We could do that tomorrow, and by so doing save many more lives than banning AR - style rifles, but we don't. And nobody has yet come up with a rational explanation why we don't. For the third time, the logic of that escapes me.

4. The terminology used is part of the problem. Picture in your mind two media stories of (say) a retiring governor. Every word in the two stories are identical. Punctuation is identical. They're mirror images of one another EXCEPT in how they describe the retiring governor. The first story describes him as an "venerable statesman", the second as an "aging politician". I don't know about most people but the mental image of the retiring governor that I'd get from story #1 would be along the lines of, say, a Winston Churchill. The second? Teddy Kennedy. Remember, the INFORMATION we got from the story is precisely the same, but the MENTAL IMAGE, and thus our sense of the person in question, is decidedly different. The debates over the killings have precisely the same flaw, in my opinion. We get gory (often wildly exaggerated) details about the damage done to the victims. The fact that the victims are dead, in some of those stories seems almost incidental. The GORE is what is emphasized. Again, the logic of that escapes me.

CAN we have a reasoned debate on the subject of these mass killings? Well, we can try, and I certainly hope we can succeed. But that can ONLY happen if all parties involved forego the emotion and stick to the pertinent facts. And so far, that has not happened.

[airstreamingypsy]

Of course it matters. Everyone is up in arms (forgive the pun) claiming that banning AR's will solve the problem when 77% of mass shootings are done by handguns, not AR's. How many mass murder events have happened so far in 2022? Everyone has a different answer to that. Why?

To answer your question... as of June there were 337 mass shootings, 387 dead, 1405 wounded.

[Teemotay]

Why not? The prerequisite of having an honest conversation is to actually be honest. There are so many flaws in the national conversation regarding mass shootings that I fear we will never solve the problem, merely putting bandaids on a severed limb will not save the life. Misdirecting the conversation will not solve mass shootings. We have a lot of very smart people in our society and nobody seems to actually be trying to understand the problem. Where is the expert team of psychologists and forensic experts dismantling the events to determine why the event happened in the first place and therefore create a plan to address it?

I don’t make a lot of posts, but I read everything on a thread that interests me.
Your comments are intelligent, non-inflammatory, to the point and clearly logical. You write in a calm tone even if countered with rude remarks and incendiary language.
Thank you for the most pleasurable and consistent debate on a topic that I’ve ever read in this forum.
I’m glad that you do what you do, but can’t help think that your talents are needed in leadership above your current positions.
We need more truth and logic in our discussions rather than quick, knee-jerk retorts that have no effective problem-solving ideas.

[jbrown132]

Given your profile picture we know where your bias is at. No thanks not interested in engaging with an obviously biased original poster with some sort of agenda.
Everyone of these individuals is mentally ill. The mental health system in this country is broken and until it gets fixed this will continue. We have a grandson who for several years was in and out of hospitals. He would tell his mother he was hearing voices that were telling him to do bad things. She would him to the hospital, they would keep him for a day, release him and essentially the treatment was go home, take two aspirin and call me in the morning. This went on for two years. Finally, he woke up one night and got his mother and father up and said the voices in his head were terrible and they were telling him to go out and hurt people. They took him to the fourth hospital they had tried where he was admitted. After two days they were going to release him until his father said if they did he was going to call everyone news outlet he could find and tell them the hospital was going to release their son who was threatening to kill himself and other people. The hospital keep him and after a month of intense discussions with psychiatrists and drug treatment he was finally diagnosed with schizophrenia and has been doing well for several years now. The real problem is most hospitals are no longer staffed or capable of handling mentally ill patients. They may have a small psychiatric unit and that’s it. They need to start building more psychiatric hospitals that treat these types of individuals where they are taken seriously when they are seeking help. In this case our grandson had two loving parents who would not give up. In the case in Texas, and most others this was not the case and there were red flags all over the place that were ignored by the parents and police. Until they fix this system that is broken this unfortunately will continue.

[Annie66]

I view this problem as I would view a fire. Fires exist because of 3 elements being present at any one time....... Oxygen ... fuel .... and heat. Remove any single element from the situation and no fire exists.

I think the same is true for mass shootings. The 3 elements being ...... a weapon (in particular assault guns with high-capacity magazines) ..... mentally disturbed people ...... and crowds of people (such as parties, malls, other gatherings, etc.).

Attempting to fix the mental health issues in our country just does not seem to be in the DNA of our legislators to fund an endeavor such as this. It's a more complex problem involving how to effectively identify mentally disturbed people and instituting fruitful treatment programs and successful evaluations. I never see that happening. If you do, please comment.

And of course, outlawing moderate to large gathering (however you want to define them) will never be a solution. All we have to do is look back at our Covid-19 experience.

The easiest solution, albeit an emotional one is removal of the weapons. I did not say all weapons. Just those that can kill many people in the shortest period of time. Prohibiting the sale of assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and things like bump stocks is the easiest way to break the triangle of mass shooting violence. Of course, this does not solve the problem completely, but as said in an earlier post when President Bush allowed the moratorium on assault weapons to pass, we saw a dramatic rise in these catastrophes. Identifying the definition of a mass shootings does not get to the root cause. It adds more blather to the discussion.

This leaves us with prohibiting the sale of assault weapons, etc. This has always ignited the emotional firestorm discussion about 2nd Amendment rights. In reality, our country did fine without assault weapons before their inception and would do fine without them in the future. The most emotional argument is if we prohibit assault weapons, then the legal ownership of pistols, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. will also be taken away. I have to ask do those who spue this really believe what they are saying? Are they the majority or minority of gun owners? Their argument is purely affective language meant to stir the fires. Lastly, on this point ..... when the assault weapon ban was put into effect, was there a groundswell of activities to begin the prohibition of personal weapons for protection and hunting? I cannot recall any meaningful legislation that was proposed. I suspect neither can you.

Let's be reasonable. The only true actionable solution to this problem is to remove one of the elements. Take out the assault weapons from the triangle and we'll return to the days of the assault weapon ban and fewer and fewer truly heinous crimes on humanity out there.

[lpkruege1]

In any discussion you have to have a frame of reference, define the terms, that's what language is all about otherwise I'am talking about apple's you are talking about oranges without the possibility of communication. Sociological factors are the root of the problem. Fifty years ago semi auto surplus military weapons were cheep, abundant, and very easy to acquire and mass shooting were very rare. We are swimming in a sea of information with no emphasis on critical thinking . Its very easy to find all manner of information that will support, reinforce ANY idea we care to have , you always find what you are looking for, if not the real article a reason or excuse that will satisfy our held opinions. The result is any "idea" has as much merit as it has popular appeal. What has changed? Then if you had the opinion that something like a "zombie apocalypse" was possible, that a reasonable explanation for a missing air liner was alien abduction , that you could change your gender you would rightfully be considered delusional and be treated as such. Our society is becoming less and less stable.

If you look at the destruction of the family, the removal of God from our lives, children being subscribed dugs at an unprecedented level, not teaching basic manners and respect, no discipline in schools or at home, what do people think will happen?
There is no such thing as an assault weapon. There are semi auto rifles and then there are military grade weapons used by the military that We as law abiding US citizens are not allowed to own. There are some allowances to own fully automatic weapons, but the list is too long to list here.

Growing up we carried our semi auto, pump, and single shot shotguns along to high school so we could stop on the way home to go hunting. We showed our teachers the shotguns, at least those that hunted. They showed us theirs. WE didn't have mass shootings.
If there was an issue at school with discipline, and my dad got called, and there was punishment when I got home. He didn't run to school threating to sue, he didn't get in fights with other parents, he didn't beat up the teacher. He punished ME. I was responsible. He didn't blame someone else for a lack of parenting. He didn't drug his child. He taught me manners, and respect for life and other people. Stop blaming an inanimate object. Put the blame where it needs to be.

[Larchap49]

Reinstate the assault weapons ban it was a reasonable law until Bush allowed it to sunset now it’s out of control!

Do you think another law will help. Prostitution, drugs , and all manner of other thing are outlawed or banned but the laws stop none of it. Laws on the books need to be enforced. Banning items just creates a black market. Resulting in only law breakers having those items. Our leadership from the lowest level has failed us

[Jacob85]

Where did the 77 percent come from? If you look at all the past shootings they all had guns that shot multiple bullets! Name a time where someone had a gun that shot one bullet at a time?

[SUENRAN]

Okay so let's establish that "Mass Shooting" is no fewer than 5 victims, at least one of them must be a stranger to the others, none of them should be undocumented immigrants, and none of them should be pregnant females.

That's still one person who shouldn't have had a firearm, having one, and using it to kill people. And THAT one person is the only "problem" that needs to be solved.

And how about alcohol? How about drugs? How about street gangs? How about drug cartels profiting by becoming conduits for illegal immigration? All of these have and do result in death to innocent persons. I guess it depends on what YOU don't like. Get real.

[Dgodin]

With the 4th of July, Uvalde, and the Greenwood Mall mass killings many people want to discuss this societal problem and find solutions to not only protect our children, but the public as a whole.

I know this thread will get locked if it becomes political so please do your very best to keep politics out of it.


The first issue in identifying a solution is understanding the problem. It begins with a failure of uniform definition. The FBI defines a mass murder event as 3 or more people killed. The media is inconsistent with their definition.

Mass shootings are the catalyst for people who wish to ban AR style rifles, despite the fact that 77% of mass shootings don't involve AR style rifles.

In my opinion a logical definition of a mass shooting should be:

1. 1 or more individuals plan to kill many strangers and 3 or more people are killed
2. Family quarrels and murder-suicides are not included
3. Gang violence is not included

If you want to talk about gun violence and acheive real answers, then you must start with no restrictions. So AR15s and gang violence cannot be excluded. Nothing can be excluded.

[Jacob85]

So just how are you going to find this one person? They don’t have prior records, they are not immigrants, and finally using mental health issues is misleading because some of them have never been identified as mental health patients. They could be sociopaths so there is no treatment for them.

[gettingby]

Reinstate the assault weapons ban it was a reasonable law until Bush allowed it to sunset now it’s out of control!

It did nothing, all words that make you feel better. My personal opinion is you will never be able to tell free people they can’t have something the constitution clearly says we can. It’s the wrong approach plus the fact that there are believed to be over 200 million guns in America now and it will start an armed conflict if it’s tried. How about we study who these people that do these things are and see if we can find the common threads. In disclosure I own an AR but also own a shotgun. As much damage as an AR will do a shotgun would be a better gun. Banning AR’s won’t put a dent in this kind of crime.

[Blackbird45]

With the 4th of July, Uvalde, and the Greenwood Mall mass killings many people want to discuss this societal problem and find solutions to not only protect our children, but the public as a whole.

I know this thread will get locked if it becomes political so please do your very best to keep politics out of it.


The first issue in identifying a solution is understanding the problem. It begins with a failure of uniform definition. The FBI defines a mass murder event as 3 or more people killed. The media is inconsistent with their definition.

Mass shootings are the catalyst for people who wish to ban AR style rifles, despite the fact that 77% of mass shootings don't involve AR style rifles.

In my opinion a logical definition of a mass shooting should be:

1. 1 or more individuals plan to kill many strangers and 3 or more people are killed
2. Family quarrels and murder-suicides are not included
3. Gang violence is not included

I know you're arguing there should not be a ban on AR-15s, but if you take a bird's eye view of the way you are presenting your argument it would seem we need tighter restriction on all firearms. That's not my position, but we have more gun related deaths than any other country.

[Larchap49]

If you look at the destruction of the family, the removal of God from our lives, children being subscribed dugs at an unprecedented level, not teaching basic manners and respect, no discipline in schools or at home, what do people think will happen?
There is no such thing as an assault weapon. There are semi auto rifles and then there are military grade weapons used by the military that We as law abiding US citizens are not allowed to own. There are some allowances to own fully automatic weapons, but the list is too long to list here.

Growing up we carried our semi auto, pump, and single shot shotguns along to high school so we could stop on the way home to go hunting. We showed our teachers the shotguns, at least those that hunted. They showed us theirs. WE didn't have mass shootings.
If there was an issue at school with discipline, and my dad got called, and there was punishment when I got home. He didn't run to school threating to sue, he didn't get in fights with other parents, he didn't beat up the teacher. He punished ME. I was responsible. He didn't blame someone else for a lack of parenting. He didn't drug his child. He taught me manners, and respect for life and other people. Stop blaming an inanimate object. Put the blame where it needs to be.

You left out planned Parenthood. In short educated self sufficient society plans a family and produces limited offspring that usually grow up to be responsible adults. On the other hand the uneducated, less than self sufficient, criminally slanted population grows at a much faster rate. This results in an ever increasing level of crime. Gee what a surprise. Possible solution? None without violating some civil rights. There is a solution that would involve forced planned Parenthood, ie forced neutering of repeat criminals. Never happen sooooo buy more guns to protect what's yours.

[Marmaduke]

In my humble opinion, this is an excellent original post, with great give and take exchanges, so far.

I'm so pleased that it has been "civil" to keep a good dialog going. Thx, we may actually learn something, be able to demand action from the adult mental health community and stop blaming AK rifles as the culprit.

As I caught up on News this morning, albeit a few days behind, I opened to a (NY Post) 2 page headline in BOLD CAPS:

GUN CAPITAL OF BIG APPLE

with a subtitle:
48 shootings this year in notorious Brooklyn precinct.

Critically thinking about this article, and based on today's post, I'd agree 100% with the importance to establish the guidelines.

We need to establish definitions and separate mass shootings from gang violence, murder/suicide if we expect to tackle this relatively new plague of mass shootings.

I Nodded in full agreement when I thought about the original posters comments on the media sensationalism. This story had about 7 graphic pictures, followed 6 timelines and was written by 3 reporters right as national legislation is underway.

Thank you for an interesting, informative and intelligent post.

[ThirdOfFive]

Everyone of these individuals is mentally ill. The mental health system in this country is broken and until it gets fixed this will continue. We have a grandson who for several years was in and out of hospitals. He would tell his mother he was hearing voices that were telling him to do bad things. She would him to the hospital, they would keep him for a day, release him and essentially the treatment was go home, take two aspirin and call me in the morning. This went on for two years. Finally, he woke up one night and got his mother and father up and said the voices in his head were terrible and they were telling him to go out and hurt people. They took him to the fourth hospital they had tried where he was admitted. After two days they were going to release him until his father said if they did he was going to call everyone news outlet he could find and tell them the hospital was going to release their son who was threatening to kill himself and other people. The hospital keep him and after a month of intense discussions with psychiatrists and drug treatment he was finally diagnosed with schizophrenia and has been doing well for several years now. The real problem is most hospitals are no longer staffed or capable of handling mentally ill patients. They may have a small psychiatric unit and that’s it. They need to start building more psychiatric hospitals that treat these types of individuals where they are taken seriously when they are seeking help. In this case our grandson had two loving parents who would not give up. In the case in Texas, and most others this was not the case and there were red flags all over the place that were ignored by the parents and police. Until they fix this system that is broken this unfortunately will continue.
There is a lot of merit to the points raised in the post above.

The history of that goes a long way back, but is similar in most states. De-institutionalization began in earnest in the 1970s. Minnesota, where I hail from, got the start on that from a certain court case, Welsch v. Noot (Welch being Patty Welsch, a mentally disabled young lady, and Noot being Art Noot, the Director (at the time) of the Minnesota Dept. of Public Welfare. The case claimed that Patty Welsch was not getting the services needed at her place of Residence (a Minnesota State Hospital), and that the services she needed could, and must be provided, in a community setting. Patty Welsch happened to have a developmental disability but the case later generalized into applying to persons with mental illness as well. The intent was good. There were undoubtedly people being warehoused in huge State facilities who could have been served better, as well as a lot cheaper (from Joe Taxpayer's point of view) in community-based facilities.

The problem was that it went too far, as idealism often does. Many of the large institutions in Minnesota that once housed the mentally disabled and mentally ill were either torn down or were "repurposed" for other uses, mainly prisons. Concurrently, community-based services were developed. Unfortunately, although most de-institutionalized folks could be served adequately in those community- based services, there were a number of them who could not: they were violent, or had medical needs so great that serving them in the community entailed a significant risk, or had other behaviors that put themselves or the community at risk if they were there, etc. etc. Concurrently with that there were legal decisions that mentally ill people had a RIGHT to be mentally ill (can't argue with that) but, given that, they also had the right to refuse medications, which led directly to an explosion of homelessness in Minnesota (and I assume most other states as well). It led to a big mess that in many respects was never solved: mentally disabled people who could have been adequately housed and cared for, but whose needs could not be met in the community, all of a sudden found themselves with no services at all, or who ended up being "served" in jails and prisons. And it is not an insignificant number: "In 2018, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reported that 14 percent of prisoners in state and federal facilities met the criteria for having serious mental health conditions. In local jails the number was 26 percent." ("Imprisoning America's Mentally Ill", Ed Lyon, "Prison Legal News" July 20, 2022). Considering that America has an estimated 2.1 MILLION people behind bars, we're looking a a huge number of mentally ill people incarcerated in America: debatably somewhere around 500,000. And that number is just those behind those bars. How many others are still out there needing services but not getting them? And committing crimes along the way?

I think it can be accepted as a given that, if America were more conscientious in treatment of folks with mental issues, there would be fewer people out there killing other people. Unfortunately, as always, the devil is in the details. We'd be fighting a lot of idealistic but often misguided advocacy groups as well as an entrenched (by now) system whose idea of "service" is and remains totally skewed.

[nhtexasrn]

What is an assault weapon?
Exactly Sarah! If someone shoots me with a tiny little Baretta 25, I am definitely assaulted!!

[The Chipster]

Given your profile picture we know where your bias is at. No thanks not interested in engaging with an obviously biased original poster with some sort of agenda.

Wow, talk about bias. Sure, let's not have a civil conversation about the mass carnage in our country.

[bp243]

With the 4th of July, Uvalde, and the Greenwood Mall mass killings many people want to discuss this societal problem and find solutions to not only protect our children, but the public as a whole.

I know this thread will get locked if it becomes political so please do your very best to keep politics out of it.


The first issue in identifying a solution is understanding the problem. It begins with a failure of uniform definition. The FBI defines a mass murder event as 3 or more people killed. The media is inconsistent with their definition.

Mass shootings are the catalyst for people who wish to ban AR style rifles, despite the fact that 77% of mass shootings don't involve AR style rifles.

In my opinion a logical definition of a mass shooting should be:

1. 1 or more individuals plan to kill many strangers and 3 or more people are killed
2. Family quarrels and murder-suicides are not included
3. Gang violence is not included

It would seem plausible to consider our USA gun-related deaths per capita with all other countries. For those countries that have lower gun-related deaths per capita, it would mean following up with the philosophy behind the gun controls in those countries. If we really want change, it's important to uncover those countries who are doing it the way that reduces the amount of deaths. Is that something that you'd be willing to do?

[Taltarzac725]

I view this problem as I would view a fire. Fires exist because of 3 elements being present at any one time....... Oxygen ... fuel .... and heat. Remove any single element from the situation and no fire exists.

I think the same is true for mass shootings. The 3 elements being ...... a weapon (in particular assault guns with high-capacity magazines) ..... mentally disturbed people ...... and crowds of people (such as parties, malls, other gatherings, etc.).

Attempting to fix the mental health issues in our country just does not seem to be in the DNA of our legislators to fund an endeavor such as this. It's a more complex problem involving how to effectively identify mentally disturbed people and instituting fruitful treatment programs and successful evaluations. I never see that happening. If you do, please comment.

And of course, outlawing moderate to large gathering (however you want to define them) will never be a solution. All we have to do is look back at our Covid-19 experience.

The easiest solution, albeit an emotional one is removal of the weapons. I did not say all weapons. Just those that can kill many people in the shortest period of time. Prohibiting the sale of assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and things like bump stocks is the easiest way to break the triangle of mass shooting violence. Of course, this does not solve the problem completely, but as said in an earlier post when President Bush allowed the moratorium on assault weapons to pass, we saw a dramatic rise in these catastrophes. Identifying the definition of a mass shootings does not get to the root cause. It adds more blather to the discussion.

This leaves us with prohibiting the sale of assault weapons, etc. This has always ignited the emotional firestorm discussion about 2nd Amendment rights. In reality, our country did fine without assault weapons before their inception and would do fine without them in the future. The most emotional argument is if we prohibit assault weapons, then the legal ownership of pistols, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. will also be taken away. I have to ask do those who spue this really believe what they are saying? Are they the majority or minority of gun owners? Their argument is purely affective language meant to stir the fires. Lastly, on this point ..... when the assault weapon ban was put into effect, was there a groundswell of activities to begin the prohibition of personal weapons for protection and hunting? I cannot recall any meaningful legislation that was proposed. I suspect neither can you.

Let's be reasonable. The only true actionable solution to this problem is to remove one of the elements. Take out the assault weapons from the triangle and we'll return to the days of the assault weapon ban and fewer and fewer truly heinous crimes on humanity out there.

Nicely put!

[tsmall22204]

It is not your knowledge of the constitution it is your interpretation. As stated earlier, you are biased, and starting this thread was a waste of time.

[Taltarzac725]

James Holmes (mass murderer) - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Holmes_(mass_murderer))

This guy was convicted. He does have a lot of mental health problems but he knew what he was doing when he did it.

A lot of these mass shooters are very much sane under the laws of their jurisdiction. Once in a while one will pop up who was under severe influence of an unbalanced mind.

12 counts of first degree murder
140 counts of attempted first degree murder
1 count of possessing an illegal explosive device
1 sentence enhancement of a crime of violence[3][4]
Penalty 12 life sentences in prison without the possibility of parole, and an additional 3,318 years[5][6][7]

[Blackbird45]

I don't believe the problem is the tool itself, but that most people do not take the responsibility for their firearms. If people are not held financially responsible from the minute it leaves the manufactures until the firearm is destroyed, we're going to have a problem with gun death counts in our country. You leave your gun in your car and it is stolen, you should be held responsible for whatever happens. A dealer sells a firearm to a person wearing a tin foil hat and a parachute they will be responsible. A child takes a gun to school the parent will be held responsible.
Firearms should be treated more like cars. First you class different firearms as you do cars, trucks and motorcycles. Second to buy that class of firearm you get a permit train on the type of firearm you want, while that is being done there will be a full background check. Once you pass the test you can buy that type of firearm and ammunition for that firearm anywhere in the country.
People today own firearms they done know how to use and firearms that don't fit the task they were purchased for.
I know a lot of people don't want the government to know what type of firearms they own, but as far as I know there is nothing in the constitution that states the government does not have that right.

[Jeffery M]

With the 4th of July, Uvalde, and the Greenwood Mall mass killings many people want to discuss this societal problem and find solutions to not only protect our children, but the public as a whole.

I know this thread will get locked if it becomes political so please do your very best to keep politics out of it.


The first issue in identifying a solution is understanding the problem. It begins with a failure of uniform definition. The FBI defines a mass murder event as 3 or more people killed. The media is inconsistent with their definition.


Mass shootings are the catalyst for people who wish to ban AR style rifles, despite the fact that 77% of mass shootings don't involve AR style rifles.

In my opinion a logical definition of a mass shooting should be:

1. 1 or more individuals plan to kill many strangers and 3 or more people are killed
2. Family quarrels and murder-suicides are not included
3. Gang violence is not included


The problem is not guns. There have been stabbings, vehicles running people over, and other various acts of random violence. Everyone is looking for a solution to what can be done to curb this problem. Unfortunately the way things are now it is nearly impossible.

The problem is not one or two things, it is many things adding up to cause such chaos. It is the dissolving of the nuclear family, where there is no stable father figure. It is also the attitude of looking out for number one that started from the 1960's and 1970's "Me Generation". I am not a religious person but I recognize that the abandonment of religious prinicples and morality by society as a whole has led to a lack of values of lives and how we treat one another as human beings.

There are still many fine people in our society but those that are disenfranchised often have nothing that they can turn to. Politicians have sought to divide us for their political agendas. Drug usage and sexual "exploration" being given prevalence over responsibilty as a parent and societal member has led to abused or ignored children growing up without a stable upbringing. Ritalin given to children and other drugs, legal and illegal, have produced generations of kids that are troubled. If you examine the background of the very young shooters you'll see that most had been on Ritalin or were on other drugs currently or in the past.

Social media has also led to depersonalization of human beings and the lack of the aspect of polite conversation. It fuels anger and hate.

All of these things I mentioned are only a small part of what makes up the problems in society that are causing people to become erratic and violent. The lack of goals, the breakdown of culture, the lack of rspect, and so many other societal ills contribute to the problem as a whole. It is the total combination that has amassed the unfathomable behavior of individuals. It is so complex that it is nearly impossible to unravel. Sorry to appear to be so pessimistic but there is the grim reality of what is going on today due to these issues. Banning guns won't stop it.

[nancyre]

What is an assault weapon? Absolutely - the issue is multi fold in determining the event details - but when we are not working with the same understanding of the facts, we cannot address the details in an effective ways.

[nancyre]

To answer your question... as of June there were 337 mass shootings, 387 dead, 1405 wounded. Please explain where you got that information.

[Taltarzac725]

Please explain where you got that information.


It is probably from here-- Mass Shootings in 2022 | Gun Violence Archive (https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting)

[jimjamuser]

With the 4th of July, Uvalde, and the Greenwood Mall mass killings many people want to discuss this societal problem and find solutions to not only protect our children, but the public as a whole.

I know this thread will get locked if it becomes political so please do your very best to keep politics out of it.


The first issue in identifying a solution is understanding the problem. It begins with a failure of uniform definition. The FBI defines a mass murder event as 3 or more people killed. The media is inconsistent with their definition.

Mass shootings are the catalyst for people who wish to ban AR style rifles, despite the fact that 77% of mass shootings don't involve AR style rifles.

In my opinion a logical definition of a mass shooting should be:

1. 1 or more individuals plan to kill many strangers and 3 or more people are killed
2. Family quarrels and murder-suicides are not included
3. Gang violence is not included
Thanks for starting a thread that is serious (as opposed to the many threads about dog do-so on somebodies yard, which is to me just fertilizer for me) - it is a serious topic and deserves attention because MANY people are interested and they have a viewpoint and it would be educational to have those shared. Mass murder events are increasing in the US much more than in many other countries. In many other countries it would NOT be worth even a thread to discuss it because such crimes are practically non-existent. Children do NOT have to worry about being shot at school in most countries. I just had a thought about imagining hypothetical Beatle's song, "Imagine there are NO mass murder events - I wonder if you can - no children afraid to go to school or church - I know I'm NOT the only one!"

I have one minor question to ask......I thought that the definition of mass murder events was 5 or more. I have heard it that way on TV.......but, I dont't know for sure......3 or more may be correct.

I would also state that the reason 77% of all mass murder events involve pistols is SIMPLY that they are easier to conceal than a much longer AR-15 style rifle. Those that use an AR-15 style are likely to have put more PLANNING in the shooting and their POSSIBLE escape - as did the man escaping for a time dressed as a woman.
........A typical mass killing involving pistols is likely to be more UNPLANNED. Imagine a car full of gang bangers driving around high and drunk and they happen to see, on the street, a rival gang member out with his lady friend, brothers, and other friends. It becomes an impromptu execution! If 3 or 5 or more people end up dead, it becomes a statistic of a mass murder event with PISTOLS. I am sure that these hypothetical gang bangers would have PREFERED to use an AR-15 style rifle (maybe one with a bump-stop) to have greater efficiency from greater range. But, they used pistols because it was a target of opportunity.
........Also, killings of whole families in fits of RAGE would more likely involve PISTOLS.

[jimjamuser]

Reinstate the assault weapons ban it was a reasonable law until Bush allowed it to sunset now it’s out of control!
That is excellent to point out when in Modern History this problem began. I would like to add that the recent Pandemic has been instrumental in increasing both general crime and mass-murder events.

[Luggage]

Your definition is yours, since so many are school shootings I'd say that knowing the victims isn't part of the definition.

[Luggage]

Yearly
Death by auto 30,000+
Death by suicide 60,000+
Death by alcohol 90,000+
death by cigarettes 480,000
Death by mass shooting 600+
Death by crimes 30,000
I know where I'd start.

[Luggage]

Yearly
Death by auto 30,000+
Death by suicide 60,000+
Death by alcohol 90,000+
death by cigarettes 480,000
Death by mass shooting 600+
Death by crimes 30,000
I know where I'd start.

[jimjamuser]

Actually, no agenda. I started the thread for one of our members who doesn't know how to start a thread but has strong opinions on the topic. I also promised to contribute to the conversation.

My bias is rooted in my knowledge of the Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and of firearms based my experience as an Instructor, competitive shooter and hunter.

What is your bias based on?
Someone that is very interested in competitive shooting, hunting, and is an instructor is justified in using a profile picture like that. It in NO way makes her opinions any less valuable than a person with a camera, cool white dog, fishing rod, or speed boat in their picture profile.

[nancyre]

In my humble opinion, this is an excellent original post, with great give and take exchanges, so far.

I'm so pleased that it has been "civil" to keep a good dialog going. Thx, we may actually learn something, be able to demand action from the adult mental health community and stop blaming AK rifles as the culprit.

As I caught up on News this morning, albeit a few days behind, I opened to a (NY Post) 2 page headline in BOLD CAPS:

GUN CAPITAL OF BIG APPLE

with a subtitle:
48 shootings this year in notorious Brooklyn precinct.

Critically thinking about this article, and based on today's post, I'd agree 100% with the importance to establish the guidelines.

We need to establish definitions and separate mass shootings from gang violence, murder/suicide if we expect to tackle this relatively new plague of mass shootings.

I Nodded in full agreement when I thought about the original posters comments on the media sensationalism. This story had about 7 graphic pictures, followed 6 timelines and was written by 3 reporters right as national legislation is underway.

Thank you for an interesting, informative and intelligent post.

NYS is one of the tightest gun control states, NYC is way tighter than the balance of the state - almost impossible to legally have a firearm in NYC. NYS Safe Act passed in the dead of the night with little review, sections have been modified or tossed as unconstitutional, classifies an Assault Weapon as containing 1 of the following attributes or "appears as" - so a single shot pre WWI rifle with a Bayonne clip is an assault weapon. Because something "appears as" vs. functions as it is classed because it "appears as" mean or scary. Until we can realistically address the facts of the piece of machinery "firearm" - it is a TOOL, used the wrong way it is dangerous but so is a car, fireworks, medications etc. It is a let's make it look like we are doing something even though it will accomplish nothing because facts are not being clearly reviewed, it is all an emotional response.

[jimjamuser]

What is an assault weapon?
It IS very true that an assault weapon is very hard to define. The semi-automatic aspect of a rifle is the contributing factor to the SPEED of shooting that is desired by both Military forces and mass murderers that shoot up crowds. The US could take away the rifles of preference in mass murder events by stopping the sales of the AR-15 style and the Russian-developed AK-47s and their later improvements. Also, silencers, magazines over 5 rounds and bump-stop accessories could and SHOULD be outlawed.

Australia and other countries refused to split hairs and pick and choose which semi-auto rifles were a particular choice weapon of mass murderers. They simply eliminated ALL semi-auto rifles and allowed only bolt-action rifles to be lawful.
I remember watching on TV as Australia placed truckloads of semi-auto rifles into trash compactors. I don't know whether this was confiscation or buy-backs. But, I do know that after that Australia's mass murder events went to nearly ZERO.

[Sarah_W]

To answer your question... as of June there were 337 mass shootings, 387 dead, 1405 wounded.

According to whom?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

If you look at the destruction of the family, the removal of God from our lives, children being subscribed dugs at an unprecedented level, not teaching basic manners and respect, no discipline in schools or at home, what do people think will happen?
There is no such thing as an assault weapon. There are semi auto rifles and then there are military grade weapons used by the military that We as law abiding US citizens are not allowed to own. There are some allowances to own fully automatic weapons, but the list is too long to list here.

Growing up we carried our semi auto, pump, and single shot shotguns along to high school so we could stop on the way home to go hunting. We showed our teachers the shotguns, at least those that hunted. They showed us theirs. WE didn't have mass shootings.
If there was an issue at school with discipline, and my dad got called, and there was punishment when I got home. He didn't run to school threating to sue, he didn't get in fights with other parents, he didn't beat up the teacher. He punished ME. I was responsible. He didn't blame someone else for a lack of parenting. He didn't drug his child. He taught me manners, and respect for life and other people. Stop blaming an inanimate object. Put the blame where it needs to be.

All the single atheists who don't shoot people would disagree. So would all the LGBTQ+ people who don't shoot people. So would all the children of interracial marriages who don't shoot people. So would all the children of single parents who grow up not shooting people.

In fact, there are more people fitting the description of "something other than a white male who identifies as male, heterosexual, christian, conservative, and patriotic" who do NOT shoot people, than there are people fitting that description who DO shoot people.

[Sarah_W]

I don’t make a lot of posts, but I read everything on a thread that interests me.
Your comments are intelligent, non-inflammatory, to the point and clearly logical. You write in a calm tone even if countered with rude remarks and incendiary language.
Thank you for the most pleasurable and consistent debate on a topic that I’ve ever read in this forum.
I’m glad that you do what you do, but can’t help think that your talents are needed in leadership above your current positions.
We need more truth and logic in our discussions rather than quick, knee-jerk retorts that have no effective problem-solving ideas.

Thank you very much. I still believe that we as a society can have frank discussions, disagree on points, and remain civil enough to share a cup of coffee and agree to disagree. Being divided and/or shunned based on a person's views solves absolutely nothing. I was taught as a young person to listen much more than I talk and to recognize we can each learn something from the other. That builds a community.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

And how about alcohol? How about drugs? How about street gangs? How about drug cartels profiting by becoming conduits for illegal immigration? All of these have and do result in death to innocent persons. I guess it depends on what YOU don't like. Get real.

Alcohol is already regulated. So are pharmaceuticals. There are actual consequences to abuse of these things, other than natural consequences.

The consequence for someone who is not prohibited from owning a gun, who is one of those people who WOULD shoot someone if they had one, even though there's no law saying they can't...and then they get one and actually shoot someone?

The consequence is that the OTHER person is dead, and they might or might not go to jail. However, if there is a law saying they are absolutely not allowed to have a gun because they had to take a test (like a drivers license test but for gun ownership), and either failed, or chose not to get tested... then their killing of someone else will have more consequences. The added consequence being - more jail time, possibly bigger fines, more LIKELY to serve time than not to serve time because of that one thing that said "you were not authorized to possess a firearm and you did anyway."

Stricter enforcement of existing laws, universal background checks, and perhaps a limit on magazine capacity for sale to the public.

I'm not in favor of a ban on weapons. I'm in favor of restrictions, not bans.

[Sarah_W]

I view this problem as I would view a fire. Fires exist because of 3 elements being present at any one time....... Oxygen ... fuel .... and heat. Remove any single element from the situation and no fire exists.

I think the same is true for mass shootings. The 3 elements being ...... a weapon (in particular assault guns with high-capacity magazines) ..... mentally disturbed people ...... and crowds of people (such as parties, malls, other gatherings, etc.).

Attempting to fix the mental health issues in our country just does not seem to be in the DNA of our legislators to fund an endeavor such as this. It's a more complex problem involving how to effectively identify mentally disturbed people and instituting fruitful treatment programs and successful evaluations. I never see that happening. If you do, please comment.

And of course, outlawing moderate to large gathering (however you want to define them) will never be a solution. All we have to do is look back at our Covid-19 experience.

The easiest solution, albeit an emotional one is removal of the weapons. I did not say all weapons. Just those that can kill many people in the shortest period of time. Prohibiting the sale of assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and things like bump stocks is the easiest way to break the triangle of mass shooting violence. Of course, this does not solve the problem completely, but as said in an earlier post when President Bush allowed the moratorium on assault weapons to pass, we saw a dramatic rise in these catastrophes. Identifying the definition of a mass shootings does not get to the root cause. It adds more blather to the discussion.

This leaves us with prohibiting the sale of assault weapons, etc. This has always ignited the emotional firestorm discussion about 2nd Amendment rights. In reality, our country did fine without assault weapons before their inception and would do fine without them in the future. The most emotional argument is if we prohibit assault weapons, then the legal ownership of pistols, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. will also be taken away. I have to ask do those who spue this really believe what they are saying? Are they the majority or minority of gun owners? Their argument is purely affective language meant to stir the fires. Lastly, on this point ..... when the assault weapon ban was put into effect, was there a groundswell of activities to begin the prohibition of personal weapons for protection and hunting? I cannot recall any meaningful legislation that was proposed. I suspect neither can you.

Let's be reasonable. The only true actionable solution to this problem is to remove one of the elements. Take out the assault weapons from the triangle and we'll return to the days of the assault weapon ban and fewer and fewer truly heinous crimes on humanity out there.

What do we do when that doesn't work? What is an assault weapon? What is a truly heinous crime?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Until we can realistically address the facts of the piece of machinery "firearm" - it is a TOOL, used the wrong way it is dangerous but so is a car, fireworks, medications etc. It is a let's make it look like we are doing something even though it will accomplish nothing because facts are not being clearly reviewed, it is all an emotional response.

It is a tool that serves a singular purpose: to kill.

It is used for target practice, it's used as a prop in movies, sure. But the reason it exists in the first place - is to kill.

A car can be used to kill. But that's not why it exists.

[Sarah_W]

Where did the 77 percent come from? If you look at all the past shootings they all had guns that shot multiple bullets! Name a time where someone had a gun that shot one bullet at a time?

According to EveryTown (Gun Control Group) it is 81%: Mass Shootings in America | Everytown Research & Policy | Everytown Research & Policy (https://everytownresearch.org/maps/mass-shootings-in-america/)

According to Statistica it is 75%: • Guns used in mass shootings U.S. 2022 | Statista (https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/)

According to USCCA it is 86%: Just a moment... (https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/gun-facts-and-fiction/mass-shootings/)

For reference, every gun used in mass shootings shoot one bullet at a time. I have not heard of a mass shooting that utilized a fully automatic firearm.

[Sarah_W]

If you want to talk about gun violence and acheive real answers, then you must start with no restrictions. So AR15s and gang violence cannot be excluded. Nothing can be excluded.

This thread is discussing mass shootings, not the entire spectrum of murder.

[jimjamuser]

100% of mass murder events are perpetrated by lunatics.

We've had semi-automatic weapons for 150 years. But we didn't start having regular mass murder events until 50 years ago, when we emptied the asylums.

400 million firearms

10,000 lunatics

You don't need an "agenda" to see the solution here. It would simply be a lot easier to lock up the lunatics than the firearms -- particularly since the lunatics invariably announce their intentions beforehand on social media!
The problem with deciding that the SOLUTION to this mass murder problem is to lock up the LUNATICS - is that most of the lunatics are just talking and imagining themselves as heroes of mass-murder events. - 99.9% of them are likely to NEVER really actualize their demented dreams. The Police monitor as many dark channels of the web as they can and they have prevented SOME actual murders from happening. But they have a hard time figuring out which are those "just talking trash" and which are those willing to take action.

Psychologists have compiled statistics on mass shooters and have FAILED to identify a personality type that would reliably PREDICT who would be LUNATIC enough to do this crime. They do know that only about 5% of mass murderers are WOMEN.

[Blackbird45]

Yearly
Death by auto 30,000+
Death by suicide 60,000+
Death by alcohol 90,000+
death by cigarettes 480,000
Death by mass shooting 600+
Death by crimes 30,000
I know where I'd start.

Assuming your figures are correct:
Death by auto 30,000 - Maybe the answer is everyone should give up their cars and use bicycles
Death by suicide 60,000 ----------- As far as I'm concern suicide is a choice.
Death by alcohol 90,000+ - -------Alcohol is another choice.
death by cigarettes 480,000 - ---Smoking another choice
Death by mass shooting 600+ - Mass shooting and crimes usually go hand and hand. Both
Death by crimes 30,000 in most cases, involve a gun.

[jimjamuser]

yeah, everyone on the internet has “done their research” at the University of Google School of Law and are constitutional scholars and bill of rights subject matter experts. Maybe you are different, maybe you studied constitutional law under Professor Tribe or someone of his caliber but I doubt it. Maybe you wrote your PhD dissertation on the bill of rights, but I doubt it. Self appointed and self certified arm chair experts are everywhere on the internet.

I too am an NRA life member and certified firearm safety instructor as I have mentioned in other posts. The difference is that I don’t need to use pictures of myself with firearms for my profile picture. Responsible gun owners don’t need to prove they own or use firearms. Walk softly and carry a big stick unless you need a picture of you and a firearm to boost your ego.
That was excessively harsh. And even amateurs like myself are entitled to an opinion on a forum. I am not writing a Doctoral thesis.

[jimjamuser]

outlaw lunatics...problem solved. oh yeah term limits for the dopes that can't get a real job.
I agree with the "term limits" part.

[Blackbird45]

There is a reality that has to be faced, 21 died in Uvalde, Texas school shooting and the police were reluctant to go in. If that man was wheeling a knife or a less lethal weapon, the odds the amount of death would have been less. Also, the police would not have thought twice of rushing in.

[Sarah_W]

It would seem plausible to consider our USA gun-related deaths per capita with all other countries. For those countries that have lower gun-related deaths per capita, it would mean following up with the philosophy behind the gun controls in those countries. If we really want change, it's important to uncover those countries who are doing it the way that reduces the amount of deaths. Is that something that you'd be willing to do?

It would be an interesting beginning conversation. I think we have to step back for a moment and recognize that when firearms were removed from public ownership, did the murders stop? In other words, if you take away people's guns, are they then murdering people with knives, hammers, etc.

Murder per capita would be a good variable to look at. If someone murders my child or my spouse I am not concerned with the tool or instrument they used to kill my loved one. If someone stabs my daughter, strangles my daughter, or shoots her with a semi-automatic rifle, the funeral and burial are all the same. The seat is still empty at the table on Thanksgiving. That is why I focus on the evil heart that would take another's life.

The national conversation is about mass shootings right now although they make up 0.2% of the murders, meaning that 99.8% of murders will still occur even if we managed to eliminate mass shootings. The next level of the national conversation is AR style rifles, yet we know that 75-85% of mass shootings are done with handguns. If we break that down to real numbers it looks like this: 45,000 people in the US are killed by firearms. 54% of those were suicide. My opinion on suicide is that if a person is committed to kill themselves they will still do it. We now have 22,500 murders by firearms. I've read 70-80% of the murders are gang and drug related. I don't think most of us are in gangs. We are not left with 5,625 actual murders by firearms. That is consistent with the FBI figure of 6,000. As noted by EveryTown, 0.2% are mass shootings. That means each year 120 people are murdered as a result of mass shootings. 75% are done with handguns. That leaves us with 30 people being murdered each year during a mass shooting with an AR style rifle.

Every statistic above is horriic. But which number is most important? The media would have us to believe that the 30 people killed on average each year with an AR style rifle is the most important. Removing all AR styled rifles will save 30 people per year but what about the other 45,000? Do we not address that? How can I help you sleep at night without you infringing on my Constitutional Rights?

What is the goal then, really? Being murdered by a firearm isn't even in the top ten for cause of death in our country.

We can put things into perspective as well. 3,000,000 people die every year from medical mistakes/errors. You are 133 times more likely to be killed by your doctor than a thug with a gun. 91,800 people died last year from opioid overdose. You are 4 times more likely to die of an opioid overdose that being shot by a thug.

We can look at the mortality schedules at the CDC website. Being murdered doesn't even make their list of the top 10 ways to die. Heart disease is #1. Maybe we should ban bacon. Wow, that would be a bummer!

ETA: Sorry for the long post. While we are talking about per capita, it would also be prudent to look at the major cities that drive our murder rates.

[Sarah_W]

It is not your knowledge of the constitution it is your interpretation. As stated earlier, you are biased, and starting this thread was a waste of time.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm all for a nice conversation on the Constitution and would happily contribute. What would you like to talk about?

[jimjamuser]

Of course it matters. Everyone is up in arms (forgive the pun) claiming that banning AR's will solve the problem when 77% of mass shootings are done by handguns, not AR's. How many mass murder events have happened so far in 2022? Everyone has a different answer to that. Why?

Every problem can be solved with a Cause and Effects Analysis (Ishikawa) combined with Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). Or, as we do in criminal law, we should look at Means, Motive and Opportunity. I see nobody even attempting to solve the problem.
Actually, Australia and some other countries have solved the problem of mass murder events. I keep saying that because it is not GENERALLY known to Americans. I rarely hear that mentioned on TV in connection with these events. If you look at a graph of which countries have gun crime problems the US is over double the next country.
Also, a graph of gun ownership by country shows that the US has 1.2 guns in civilian hands PER person. That is WAY more than Canada, Mexico, or any other 1st world country,

To give a very crude summary.......The US is the PROBLEM and Australia is the SOLUTION.

[Taltarzac725]

Actually, Australia and some other countries have solved the problem of mass murder events. I keep saying that because it is not GENERALLY known to Americans. I rarely hear that mentioned on TV in connection with these events. If you look at a graph of which countries have gun crime problems the US is over double the next country.
Also, a graph of gun ownership by country shows that the US has 1.2 guns in civilian hands PER person. That is WAY more than Canada, Mexico, or any other 1st world country,

To give a very crude summary.......The US is the PROBLEM and Australia is the SOLUTION.

Gun laws of Australia - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_of_Australia)

Some of that legal framework on gun control is quite interesting.

And it probably would lessen the number of mass shootings, no matter how you define them.

[Sarah_W]

I don't believe the problem is the tool itself, but that most people do not take the responsibility for their firearms. If people are not held financially responsible from the minute it leaves the manufactures until the firearm is destroyed, we're going to have a problem with gun death counts in our country. You leave your gun in your car and it is stolen, you should be held responsible for whatever happens. A dealer sells a firearm to a person wearing a tin foil hat and a parachute they will be responsible. A child takes a gun to school the parent will be held responsible.
Firearms should be treated more like cars. First you class different firearms as you do cars, trucks and motorcycles. Second to buy that class of firearm you get a permit train on the type of firearm you want, while that is being done there will be a full background check. Once you pass the test you can buy that type of firearm and ammunition for that firearm anywhere in the country.
People today own firearms they done know how to use and firearms that don't fit the task they were purchased for.
I know a lot of people don't want the government to know what type of firearms they own, but as far as I know there is nothing in the constitution that states the government does not have that right.

There is nothing in the Constitution giving the government any Rights. The Rights delineated in the Constitution are marked for the People and then for the States. It gives the government certain powers and that is all.

The issue with comparing guns and cars is that driving is a privilege and owning guns is a Right. I do think it is worth noting that the 2nd Amendment mentions a "well regulated militia". I find most people don't know what that means. By definition a militia is formed from the body of the people. For example, on April 19, 1775 the British Regulars marched on Concord and Lexington for the purpose of seizing arms. They were met by the militia (Minutemen) and so sparked our American Revolution. These men were farmers, bakers, saddle maker, inn keepers, etc. Ordinary citizens, in other words. But remember, "well regulated militia". To be well regulated meant to be properly trained and outfitted. In other words, a man needed his firearm, ammunition, and proper training.

I can accept, from the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, that the people should be trained. How should that work, particularly? I think people should be taught specific safety principles, the operation of the firearm, proper holster draw, marksmanship, etc Given I do this for a living it may seem self serving and I can't help that. I do know that I have had students who gave me 2 hours per month for 7 months in a row, with the caveat that they had to go to the range at least once to practice the new things they learned, and at the end they could competently draw from their holster in under a second, engage the target, and move to another target.

That is 14 hours of training and at that point I've set them up to be respectable at a shooting competition. I'd like to see 8 hours of instruction, divided into 2 hour sessions and spread over a certain amount of time to demonstrate that someone is a safe shooter. Just my opinion.

[Sarah_W]

Thanks for starting a thread that is serious (as opposed to the many threads about dog do-so on somebodies yard, which is to me just fertilizer for me) - it is a serious topic and deserves attention because MANY people are interested and they have a viewpoint and it would be educational to have those shared. Mass murder events are increasing in the US much more than in many other countries. In many other countries it would NOT be worth even a thread to discuss it because such crimes are practically non-existent. Children do NOT have to worry about being shot at school in most countries. I just had a thought about imagining hypothetical Beatle's song, "Imagine there are NO mass murder events - I wonder if you can - no children afraid to go to school or church - I know I'm NOT the only one!"

I have one minor question to ask......I thought that the definition of mass murder events was 5 or more. I have heard it that way on TV.......but, I dont't know for sure......3 or more may be correct.

I would also state that the reason 77% of all mass murder events involve pistols is SIMPLY that they are easier to conceal than a much longer AR-15 style rifle. Those that use an AR-15 style are likely to have put more PLANNING in the shooting and their POSSIBLE escape - as did the man escaping for a time dressed as a woman.
........A typical mass killing involving pistols is likely to be more UNPLANNED. Imagine a car full of gang bangers driving around high and drunk and they happen to see, on the street, a rival gang member out with his lady friend, brothers, and other friends. It becomes an impromptu execution! If 3 or 5 or more people end up dead, it becomes a statistic of a mass murder event with PISTOLS. I am sure that these hypothetical gang bangers would have PREFERED to use an AR-15 style rifle (maybe one with a bump-stop) to have greater efficiency from greater range. But, they used pistols because it was a target of opportunity.
........Also, killings of whole families in fits of RAGE would more likely involve PISTOLS.

Jim, welcome! This Buds for you! (Figuratively speaking)

The FBI definition is 3 people killed. EveryTown (Gun Control group) says 5. If I'm not mistaken the FBI used to have it as 5 before but changed it.

In my view a mass shooting is someone who is out for notoriety and plans to go someplace and shoot as many innocent people as they can before they die. That is a purely evil plot. We can't ignore that the vast majority of these are done by young men. I know I've said in jest that we should just allow women to own guns and the problem would be solved. That is likely a true statement, but unconstitutional, nonetheless.

I do hope you took the time to read the entire thread as there have been some excellent posts made and everyone is being civil to one another, for the most part.

I realize you're going to pointing to other countries and I do want to keep everything in context for a meaningful dialogue so kindly cite your sources of information.

[Sarah_W]

Someone that is very interested in competitive shooting, hunting, and is an instructor is justified in using a profile picture like that. It in NO way makes her opinions any less valuable than a person with a camera, cool white dog, fishing rod, or speed boat in their picture profile.

Thank you Jim. :angel:

[Sarah_W]

There is a reality that has to be faced, 21 died in Uvalde, Texas school shooting and the police were reluctant to go in. If that man was wheeling a knife or a less lethal weapon, the odds the amount of death would have been less. Also, the police would not have thought twice of rushing in.

I have several opinions about Uvalde and we can dive into that if anyone likes. The first Police were on the scene within 3 minutes of the shooter. They did not engage for 77 minutes. During that time many more were either killed or bled out. I do believe the reason the Police did not act within the first moments was a complete lack of training for such a scenario. A symptom of that lack of training is the defunding of Police movement. When budgets get cut, training is the first to go. I have worked with a few Officers to improve their performance for the annual qualification and the lack of training disturbs me.

[J Brisbois]

The young child said "Well teacher if guns kill people, then my pencil just flunked this math test.

[Sarah_W]

Actually, Australia and some other countries have solved the problem of mass murder events. I keep saying that because it is not GENERALLY known to Americans. I rarely hear that mentioned on TV in connection with these events. If you look at a graph of which countries have gun crime problems the US is over double the next country.
Also, a graph of gun ownership by country shows that the US has 1.2 guns in civilian hands PER person. That is WAY more than Canada, Mexico, or any other 1st world country,

To give a very crude summary.......The US is the PROBLEM and Australia is the SOLUTION.

I will have to disagree with some of that. The list of "mass murder events" that you refer to is not a true list of mass murders. I've looked at the raw data, such as on the GunViolence website, an most of the events listed are not mass murders, they are mass injuries of which they deem to be 3 or more. If three people are shot with .22 pistols and have to go to the hospital, it makes the list. Do other countries count that? I have no idea.

To compare us to other countries the raw data has to be collected in the same way and analyzed in the same way to make it comparable.

[jimjamuser]

I agree that a consistent definition of mass murder events needs to be set, and further that gang violence, although abhorrent, should not be included. This has nothing to do with the value of lives lost, but rather evidence shows that non gang related mass shootings are more widely reported by the media and for longer periods of time.Consider too that people on this board seem to invest more of their time posting on these sensationalized murders versus the weekly killings in Chicago, or the loss of 380 people per day from excessive alcohol per the CDC (link (https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-deaths.html)), or “necking it down” to the 32 alcohol related drunk driving deaths per day reported by the NHTSA (link (https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving))

Another thing that needs to be done is to define mental illness. Does it include people with little to no socialization skills? Does it include pure evil? How are these types of people treated or managed? Are we self aware enough to recognize that “Nintendo babysitters” may be a contributory cause to lack of socialization skills?

Why is it that we continue to hear after a tragic event that these mass shooters left social media posts, or told people about intended violence, prior to the shootings? What can be done to facilitate reporting?

It has been suggested that we take away “the prize” of attention that may be driving copycat killers. Why is this so hard to do?

The focus needs to be on identifying the underlying causes in OUR society that trigger these shooters and then try to fix those causes. The waters get muddied by those who would compare countries since no country operates in a vacuum and such comparisons ignore the differences in cultures and their effects on societal pressures.

Lastly, we need to go back to enforcing the law and holding people accountable for their actions. You choose to do the crime, then be prepared to do the time.
As to identifying the underlying social cause of the problem......I have stated that IMO the recent Pandemic (which continues today in milder form) is a major factor in the recent increase in overall crime (like car thefts), gun crimes (like robberies and gun violence) and mass murder events. Studying the social psychology of the Pandemic would help to understand the INCREASE in mass murder events and might shed light on the need to eliminate the preferred rifles and magazines used by the most SUCCESSFUL (in a terrible way) mass murderers.

In general, Historically the US as a country began with gun violence. (I am not saying that it was not justified). If gun violence birthed the country, then the gun became a symbol of independence. July 4th is celebrated with fireworks, which is a symbol of cannon fire and the fireworks have the smell of black powder. That smell alone could be retained in the brains and psychology of impressionable youth. After the country was founded, steps were taken to irradicate the Native Americans through violent wars and relocations. Our country also condoned for a long time the violence that was done to Black Americans. After the Civil War, the wild west frontier began, in which, the gun had a prominent place. In movies and on TV the wild west has never died and the six-shooter and rifle had a part to play as big as any actor. And there was violence around labor strikes in the early 20th century. And also, racial violence.

Basically, the US is a country that has glamorized violence and particularly, gun violence. Today the US has a host of problems too numerous to mention, starting with over-population.... (OK I could not help mentioning my favorite). So, we are a historically violent country whose social cohesion is unraveling with 1.2 guns for every US civilian.....WHAT could possibly go wrong?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I do think it is worth noting that the 2nd Amendment mentions a "well regulated militia". I find most people don't know what that means. By definition a militia is formed from the body of the people. For example, on April 19, 1775 the British Regulars marched on Concord and Lexington for the purpose of seizing arms. They were met by the militia (Minutemen) and so sparked our American Revolution. These men were farmers, bakers, saddle maker, inn keepers, etc. Ordinary citizens, in other words. But remember, "well regulated militia". To be well regulated meant to be properly trained and outfitted. In other words, a man needed his firearm, ammunition, and proper training.

I can accept, from the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, that the people should be trained. How should that work, particularly? I think people should be taught specific safety principles, the operation of the firearm, proper holster draw, marksmanship, etc Given I do this for a living it may seem self serving and I can't help that. I do know that I have had students who gave me 2 hours per month for 7 months in a row, with the caveat that they had to go to the range at least once to practice the new things they learned, and at the end they could competently draw from their holster in under a second, engage the target, and move to another target.

That is 14 hours of training and at that point I've set them up to be respectable at a shooting competition. I'd like to see 8 hours of instruction, divided into 2 hour sessions and spread over a certain amount of time to demonstrate that someone is a safe shooter. Just my opinion.

Saying "they should be trained" is suggestive, not regulatory. Saying "they MUST be trained" is regulatory.

LEGAL ownership of firearms needs to come with a REQUIREMENT that the owner has training, and a license indicating that she has successfully passed that training, which comes with a background check, and is now qualified and authorized to possess that firearm.

[Larchap49]

Actually, Australia and some other countries have solved the problem of mass murder events. I keep saying that because it is not GENERALLY known to Americans. I rarely hear that mentioned on TV in connection with these events. If you look at a graph of which countries have gun crime problems the US is over double the next country.
Also, a graph of gun ownership by country shows that the US has 1.2 guns in civilian hands PER person. That is WAY more than Canada, Mexico, or any other 1st world country,

To give a very crude summary.......The US is the PROBLEM and Australia is the SOLUTION.

Australians are almost as suppressed as Russians and Chinese, I doubt you would be happy with that much government interference, although you may find out sooner than you think

[Sarah_W]

Saying "they should be trained" is suggestive, not regulatory. Saying "they MUST be trained" is regulatory.

LEGAL ownership of firearms needs to come with a REQUIREMENT that the owner has training, and a license indicating that she has successfully passed that training, which comes with a background check, and is now qualified and authorized to possess that firearm.

That gets kinda tricky. The SCOTUS has made it clear that the government can’t require a license or permit to exercise our inalienable rights.

Much like a hunter safety course, the training could be mandatory as in a high school requirement. I would much rather every student be educated and competent with firearms instead of gender studies.

[jimjamuser]

Everyone of these individuals is mentally ill. The mental health system in this country is broken and until it gets fixed this will continue. We have a grandson who for several years was in and out of hospitals. He would tell his mother he was hearing voices that were telling him to do bad things. She would him to the hospital, they would keep him for a day, release him and essentially the treatment was go home, take two aspirin and call me in the morning. This went on for two years. Finally, he woke up one night and got his mother and father up and said the voices in his head were terrible and they were telling him to go out and hurt people. They took him to the fourth hospital they had tried where he was admitted. After two days they were going to release him until his father said if they did he was going to call everyone news outlet he could find and tell them the hospital was going to release their son who was threatening to kill himself and other people. The hospital keep him and after a month of intense discussions with psychiatrists and drug treatment he was finally diagnosed with schizophrenia and has been doing well for several years now. The real problem is most hospitals are no longer staffed or capable of handling mentally ill patients. They may have a small psychiatric unit and that’s it. They need to start building more psychiatric hospitals that treat these types of individuals where they are taken seriously when they are seeking help. In this case our grandson had two loving parents who would not give up. In the case in Texas, and most others this was not the case and there were red flags all over the place that were ignored by the parents and police. Until they fix this system that is broken this unfortunately will continue.
I agree with your post, but it is very simple to see WHY this is the status quo.......TAXES namely HIGHER taxes would be needed to put a dent into crime and violence through mental health solutions and improvements. Currently, people are willing to accept social violence rather than pay higher TAXES. If the US were a better society with greater GNP and lesser GREED, then likely, improved health care WOULD decrease violence.

I believe that the least expensive, while still, somewhat effective solution is to study and augment some of the Australian SOLUTION. Nothing is perfect and some 2nd amendment purists and NRA believers would be extremely unhappy, but their children and grandchildren could, at least, go to school without fearing for their lives. A lot of what happens in the future depends on the public sentiment of RAGE if these mass murder events keep happening at this constantly increasing pace. If and when it happens to someone in YOUR family then it would become personal and NOT academic!

It also could (?) be also possible that with society stabilizing somewhat from the secondary psychological trauma from the Pandemic and that in about 5 years the number of mass-murder events returns to normal and hopefully an acceptable level.

[Taltarzac725]

If the government tried to take firearms away from US citizens they would probably hide many of them. And have many people assisting in this. Kind of like Prohibition and alcohol.

I have been wondering what they did about the Tommy Guns from that era? Thompson submachine gun - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thompson_submachine_gun)

National Firearms Act - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act)

[jimjamuser]

I view this problem as I would view a fire. Fires exist because of 3 elements being present at any one time....... Oxygen ... fuel .... and heat. Remove any single element from the situation and no fire exists.

I think the same is true for mass shootings. The 3 elements being ...... a weapon (in particular assault guns with high-capacity magazines) ..... mentally disturbed people ...... and crowds of people (such as parties, malls, other gatherings, etc.).

Attempting to fix the mental health issues in our country just does not seem to be in the DNA of our legislators to fund an endeavor such as this. It's a more complex problem involving how to effectively identify mentally disturbed people and instituting fruitful treatment programs and successful evaluations. I never see that happening. If you do, please comment.

And of course, outlawing moderate to large gathering (however you want to define them) will never be a solution. All we have to do is look back at our Covid-19 experience.

The easiest solution, albeit an emotional one is removal of the weapons. I did not say all weapons. Just those that can kill many people in the shortest period of time. Prohibiting the sale of assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and things like bump stocks is the easiest way to break the triangle of mass shooting violence. Of course, this does not solve the problem completely, but as said in an earlier post when President Bush allowed the moratorium on assault weapons to pass, we saw a dramatic rise in these catastrophes. Identifying the definition of a mass shootings does not get to the root cause. It adds more blather to the discussion.

This leaves us with prohibiting the sale of assault weapons, etc. This has always ignited the emotional firestorm discussion about 2nd Amendment rights. In reality, our country did fine without assault weapons before their inception and would do fine without them in the future. The most emotional argument is if we prohibit assault weapons, then the legal ownership of pistols, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. will also be taken away. I have to ask do those who spue this really believe what they are saying? Are they the majority or minority of gun owners? Their argument is purely affective language meant to stir the fires. Lastly, on this point ..... when the assault weapon ban was put into effect, was there a groundswell of activities to begin the prohibition of personal weapons for protection and hunting? I cannot recall any meaningful legislation that was proposed. I suspect neither can you.

Let's be reasonable. The only true actionable solution to this problem is to remove one of the elements. Take out the assault weapons from the triangle and we'll return to the days of the assault weapon ban and fewer and fewer truly heinous crimes on humanity out there.
That is EXACTLY what I have been trying to communicate. But, this post is so much more artful, educational, and articulate than anything that I have EVER said. Kudos. If only you would keep repeating it until it becomes the law of the land......I can put my keyboard away! On this subject anyway.

[jimjamuser]

If you look at the destruction of the family, the removal of God from our lives, children being subscribed dugs at an unprecedented level, not teaching basic manners and respect, no discipline in schools or at home, what do people think will happen?
There is no such thing as an assault weapon. There are semi auto rifles and then there are military grade weapons used by the military that We as law abiding US citizens are not allowed to own. There are some allowances to own fully automatic weapons, but the list is too long to list here.

Growing up we carried our semi auto, pump, and single shot shotguns along to high school so we could stop on the way home to go hunting. We showed our teachers the shotguns, at least those that hunted. They showed us theirs. WE didn't have mass shootings.
If there was an issue at school with discipline, and my dad got called, and there was punishment when I got home. He didn't run to school threating to sue, he didn't get in fights with other parents, he didn't beat up the teacher. He punished ME. I was responsible. He didn't blame someone else for a lack of parenting. He didn't drug his child. He taught me manners, and respect for life and other people. Stop blaming an inanimate object. Put the blame where it needs to be.
Unfortunately, that is a description of a time long ago (and gone) in RURAL America. I grew up in the northern suburbs of a big city and had a friend that said that they had never seen a cow except on TV. Some people may have had a "Leave it to Beaver" type of childhood, but many in the big cities had a different life.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

That is EXACTLY what I have been trying to communicate. But, this post is so much more artful, educational, and articulate than anything that I have EVER said. Kudos. If only you would keep repeating it until it becomes the law of the land......I can put my keyboard away! On this subject anyway.

It's wayyyyyy way past the point of no return with regards to the ban on assault or semi-automatic weapons. They're already out among the masses, there are more of them in this country than there are people. Banning assault weapons doesn't solve the problem, or even really address it.

Lawful people will have no problem getting a license. Getting a background check. People give up their "privacy" every time they open a bank account, get a motor vehicle license, buy health insurance, get a credit card, take out a mortgage, post on an online forum, and even in many cases, get a job. It's just one more box that has to be checked off, on the list of boxes in your lifetime.

Unlawful people will circumvent the law, and pay the consequences JUST by virtue of the fact that they possess a weapon they're not licensed to possess.

[jimjamuser]

Where did the 77 percent come from? If you look at all the past shootings they all had guns that shot multiple bullets! Name a time where someone had a gun that shot one bullet at a time?
I could be satisfied with a single-shot rifle, shotgun, or pistol. Especially when they would significantly decrease the mass-murder events and make schools and churches safer. I doubt that most people would want to make that tradeoff. Maybe someday in the future if mass killing keeps increasing to an intolerable level, that might become a solution. It actually would preserve the 2nd Amendment and allow hunting, and home protection. The trick would be how to keep the bad guys armed only with similar low-tech firearms. But, it is a good thought experiment.

[Aces4]

That is EXACTLY what I have been trying to communicate. But, this post is so much more artful, educational, and articulate than anything that I have EVER said. Kudos. If only you would keep repeating it until it becomes the law of the land......I can put my keyboard away! On this subject anyway.

I couldn’t disagree more. This whole situation is far more complicated than this simplicity of assault weapons. We need mental health institutions and yes we can afford them, burn the ridiculous pork in the annual budget. Family values are critical as is faith. Most importantly, more of these mentally ill murderers are extremely bright. Fentanyl is far more available in copious amounts and far more insidious and deadly than any gun out there. And yes, the mentally ill will figure out how to obtain and use it for evil. We haven’t seen the horrors of what may lie ahead, China knows what it is doing, unfortunately.

[jimjamuser]

It would seem plausible to consider our USA gun-related deaths per capita with all other countries. For those countries that have lower gun-related deaths per capita, it would mean following up with the philosophy behind the gun controls in those countries. If we really want change, it's important to uncover those countries who are doing it the way that reduces the amount of deaths. Is that something that you'd be willing to do?
Americans are very ethnocentric and often prefer to blunder around and make their own mistakes rather than looking to other countries for solutions. Perhaps they consider these other countries to be somehow inferior. As Mr. Winston Churchill said, "America ALWAYS does the right thing, after all other solutions are tried."

[Reiver]

If you want to cut down on mass shootings (and crime in general) there needs to be a return to speedy implementation of punishments that are equitable to the crime, and well publicized.

Public executions would slow down the copycat killers who desire notoriety. Put their heads on a pike in the city hall square.
James Cagney in "Angels with Dirty Faces".

[Reiver]

double post

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Another more drastic measure (for the USA, not so much for other places): instead of maintaining "registration" for all males age 18...

How about mandatory military training and service for all able-bodied/minded men and women between 18 and 20. It should be a civic duty to the country to serve. Plus they get their weapons training, real actual military training rather than this proud boys pretend garbage that gets peddled.

That way this younger generation can grow up to be adults who carry firearms, know how to use them, how NOT to use them, when to use them, when NOT to use them. And they've proven themselves mentally and physically capable of handling it.

[jimjamuser]

According to EveryTown (Gun Control Group) it is 81%: Mass Shootings in America | Everytown Research & Policy | Everytown Research & Policy (https://everytownresearch.org/maps/mass-shootings-in-america/)

According to Statistica it is 75%: • Guns used in mass shootings U.S. 2022 | Statista (https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/)

According to USCCA it is 86%: Just a moment... (https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/gun-facts-and-fiction/mass-shootings/)

For reference, every gun used in mass shootings shoot one bullet at a time. I have not heard of a mass shooting that utilized a fully automatic firearm.
As a purely technical note and with even some semantics thrown in..........even an automatic military rifle fires only ONE bullet out of the barrel at a time. It fires bullets out of the barrel with ONE TRIGGER PULL for as long as it is pulled or when the magazine runs out of rounds. There may have been some derringer or shotgun with 4 barrels that had some kind of hammer that would strike the primers of all 4 barrels at the same time so that the bullets or shot exited the barrels at the same time - but, I don't know about any - and I can't see any advantage to it. And there would be a disadvantage of more weight.

[Blueblaze]

The problem with deciding that the SOLUTION to this mass murder problem is to lock up the LUNATICS - is that most of the lunatics are just talking and imagining themselves as heroes of mass-murder events. - 99.9% of them are likely to NEVER really actualize their demented dreams. The Police monitor as many dark channels of the web as they can and they have prevented SOME actual murders from happening. But they have a hard time figuring out which are those "just talking trash" and which are those willing to take action.

Psychologists have compiled statistics on mass shooters and have FAILED to identify a personality type that would reliably PREDICT who would be LUNATIC enough to do this crime. They do know that only about 5% of mass murderers are WOMEN.

50 years ago when a lunatic started raving about killing people, they were sent to an asylum and got some help. Innocents were protected.

Then educated idiots everywhere decided that that it was cruel to expose a lunatic to help when he didn't ask for it. So they emptied the asylums. And almost immediately, we started suffering mass murder events.

Politicians jumped on it to do something they had always wanted to do anyway-- disarm the citizenry. So they blamed the murders on the guns that had always been around -- not the lunatics that had suddenly showed up begging for spare change on every street corner, pooping in the street, camping in public parks, raving at strangers, and committing mass murder.

This is a pure cause-and-effect issue. It is only political because politicians make it that way.

Even if Clinton's stupid AR15 ban lowered the mass murder rate 2% (which it only did if you jimmy the numbers) -- THAT'S NOT ENOUGH. The rate used to be ZERO!

The last thing we need is for some lunatic who can't get his hands on a varmint rifle to discover that the recipe for a variety of bombs is widely available on the web, and the ingredients are much cheaper than an AR15.

[rogerrice60]

Reinstate the assault weapons ban it was a reasonable law until Bush allowed it to sunset now it’s out of control!
It's not the weapon, it's the weapon holder

[Sarah_W]

I could be satisfied with a single-shot rifle, shotgun, or pistol. Especially when they would significantly decrease the mass-murder events and make schools and churches safer. I doubt that most people would want to make that tradeoff. Maybe someday in the future if mass killing keeps increasing to an intolerable level, that might become a solution. It actually would preserve the 2nd Amendment and allow hunting, and home protection. The trick would be how to keep the bad guys armed only with similar low-tech firearms. But, it is a good thought experiment.

Armed citizens stop 2.5 million violent crimes every year. It is estimated that half or more saved at least one life. 3.7 million homes are broken into every year. The typical home invasion occurs between 10am and 3 pm. in 1 million of the home invasions the people are home and 270,000 of them become the victim of a violent crime. 46.5% involve weapons, 38.2% involve firearms. That means 1,413,400 home invasions involve an armed intruder. Approximately 1,000 people are murdered each year during a home invasion.

Armed citizens stop a lot of crimes every year and save a lot of lives. If I'm faced with an armed assailant, I want a semi-automatic with an extra magazine.
Never has a person who survived a gun fight complained of having too much ammo and never have they wished for an inferior weapon.

What are the chances you will ever face an armed assailant?
Answer: Not zero.

[jimjamuser]

It would be an interesting beginning conversation. I think we have to step back for a moment and recognize that when firearms were removed from public ownership, did the murders stop? In other words, if you take away people's guns, are they then murdering people with knives, hammers, etc.

Murder per capita would be a good variable to look at. If someone murders my child or my spouse I am not concerned with the tool or instrument they used to kill my loved one. If someone stabs my daughter, strangles my daughter, or shoots her with a semi-automatic rifle, the funeral and burial are all the same. The seat is still empty at the table on Thanksgiving. That is why I focus on the evil heart that would take another's life.

The national conversation is about mass shootings right now although they make up 0.2% of the murders, meaning that 99.8% of murders will still occur even if we managed to eliminate mass shootings. The next level of the national conversation is AR style rifles, yet we know that 75-85% of mass shootings are done with handguns. If we break that down to real numbers it looks like this: 45,000 people in the US are killed by firearms. 54% of those were suicide. My opinion on suicide is that if a person is committed to kill themselves they will still do it. We now have 22,500 murders by firearms. I've read 70-80% of the murders are gang and drug related. I don't think most of us are in gangs. We are not left with 5,625 actual murders by firearms. That is consistent with the FBI figure of 6,000. As noted by EveryTown, 0.2% are mass shootings. That means each year 120 people are murdered as a result of mass shootings. 75% are done with handguns. That leaves us with 30 people being murdered each year during a mass shooting with an AR style rifle.

Every statistic above is horriic. But which number is most important? The media would have us to believe that the 30 people killed on average each year with an AR style rifle is the most important. Removing all AR styled rifles will save 30 people per year but what about the other 45,000? Do we not address that? How can I help you sleep at night without you infringing on my Constitutional Rights?

What is the goal then, really? Being murdered by a firearm isn't even in the top ten for cause of death in our country.

We can put things into perspective as well. 3,000,000 people die every year from medical mistakes/errors. You are 133 times more likely to be killed by your doctor than a thug with a gun. 91,800 people died last year from opioid overdose. You are 4 times more likely to die of an opioid overdose that being shot by a thug.

We can look at the mortality schedules at the CDC website. Being murdered doesn't even make their list of the top 10 ways to die. Heart disease is #1. Maybe we should ban bacon. Wow, that would be a bummer!

ETA: Sorry for the long post. While we are talking about per capita, it would also be prudent to look at the major cities that drive our murder rates.
OK, I just took a QUICK lap around my GOOGLE machine and......the Institute of Medicine said that in 2020 - 98,000 US people were killed by Medical ERRORS.

The House Oversite Committee said that recent mass murders totaled 234 people. These were at Uvalde, Las Vegas, Orlando Sandy Hook, Buffalo, Highland Park. Parkland, Sab Bernadino, Southerland Springs, and Boulder.

In 2019 the US had 4.12 gun homicides per 100,000 people
Israel had 1.05
Canada had .5
Australia had .18
The UK had .04

[jimjamuser]

Gun laws of Australia - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_of_Australia)

Some of that legal framework on gun control is quite interesting.

And it probably would lessen the number of mass shootings, no matter how you define them.
Interesting!

[jimjamuser]

I have several opinions about Uvalde and we can dive into that if anyone likes. The first Police were on the scene within 3 minutes of the shooter. They did not engage for 77 minutes. During that time many more were either killed or bled out. I do believe the reason the Police did not act within the first moments was a complete lack of training for such a scenario. A symptom of that lack of training is the defunding of Police movement. When budgets get cut, training is the first to go. I have worked with a few Officers to improve their performance for the annual qualification and the lack of training disturbs me.
I heard on TV that one officer (a school officer, I think) saw the Uvalde shooter walking outside after he had sent some shots at people in an adjacent parking lot. For some reason (?), that officer did NOT shoot at him. I believe that I heard that the shot was too long. There were a lot of changes to the story as time went on, so this may or may not be true.

[jimjamuser]

I will have to disagree with some of that. The list of "mass murder events" that you refer to is not a true list of mass murders. I've looked at the raw data, such as on the GunViolence website, an most of the events listed are not mass murders, they are mass injuries of which they deem to be 3 or more. If three people are shot with .22 pistols and have to go to the hospital, it makes the list. Do other countries count that? I have no idea.

To compare us to other countries the raw data has to be collected in the same way and analyzed in the same way to make it comparable.
There are professional statisticians that are perfectly capable of comparing apples to apples and coming up with worldwide comparisons for different countries. Many people in the US are so ethnocentric that they believe the unlikely statement that the US is # 1 at everything and in ALL categories. It was true that after WW2 the US was in the top 10 in all worldwide categories. Today the Scandinavian countries and Switzerland are in the top ten. The US is around 30th or below in most categories. I think that it may be 21 in higher education. I have not looked in a while, but those lists should not be hard to find. I believe that jingoism is defined as believing that your country can do no wrong.

[jimjamuser]

Australians are almost as suppressed as Russians and Chinese, I doubt you would be happy with that much government interference, although you may find out sooner than you think
It is not just Australians that have close to ZERO problems with mass murder events, there are dozens of other countries without the problem that the US has.

[jimjamuser]

It's wayyyyyy way past the point of no return with regards to the ban on assault or semi-automatic weapons. They're already out among the masses, there are more of them in this country than there are people. Banning assault weapons doesn't solve the problem, or even really address it.

Lawful people will have no problem getting a license. Getting a background check. People give up their "privacy" every time they open a bank account, get a motor vehicle license, buy health insurance, get a credit card, take out a mortgage, post on an online forum, and even in many cases, get a job. It's just one more box that has to be checked off, on the list of boxes in your lifetime.

Unlawful people will circumvent the law, and pay the consequences JUST by virtue of the fact that they possess a weapon they're not licensed to possess.
If mass murders keep increasing and become a much BIGGER problem than today, then the US will begin buy-backs and destruction of the weapons causing the most problems like Australia did after their mass murders. At some point in the future the US may HAVE to ask .......do they preserve American society or do they preserve the right for every citizen to own a military man-killing weapon? Everything in life is a trade off or balance..

[jimjamuser]

I couldn’t disagree more. This whole situation is far more complicated than this simplicity of assault weapons. We need mental health institutions and yes we can afford them, burn the ridiculous pork in the annual budget. Family values are critical as is faith. Most importantly, more of these mentally ill murderers are extremely bright. Fentanyl is far more available in copious amounts and far more insidious and deadly than any gun out there. And yes, the mentally ill will figure out how to obtain and use it for evil. We haven’t seen the horrors of what may lie ahead, China knows what it is doing, unfortunately.
Yes. but, I don't want to go too far out into the weeds for SOLUTIONS.

[Taltarzac725]

I heard on TV that one officer (a school officer, I think) saw the Uvalde shooter walking outside after he had sent some shots at people in an adjacent parking lot. For some reason (?), that officer did NOT shoot at him. I believe that I heard that the shot was too long. There were a lot of changes to the story as time went on, so this may or may not be true.

He was scared about collateral damage if he took the shot.

[jimjamuser]

50 years ago when a lunatic started raving about killing people, they were sent to an asylum and got some help. Innocents were protected.

Then educated idiots everywhere decided that that it was cruel to expose a lunatic to help when he didn't ask for it. So they emptied the asylums. And almost immediately, we started suffering mass murder events.

Politicians jumped on it to do something they had always wanted to do anyway-- disarm the citizenry. So they blamed the murders on the guns that had always been around -- not the lunatics that had suddenly showed up begging for spare change on every street corner, pooping in the street, camping in public parks, raving at strangers, and committing mass murder.

This is a pure cause-and-effect issue. It is only political because politicians make it that way.

Even if Clinton's stupid AR15 ban lowered the mass murder rate 2% (which it only did if you jimmy the numbers) -- THAT'S NOT ENOUGH. The rate used to be ZERO!

The last thing we need is for some lunatic who can't get his hands on a varmint rifle to discover that the recipe for a variety of bombs is widely available on the web, and the ingredients are much cheaper than an AR15.
The asylums were emptied out into the slums.... which is almost poetic. I believe that the asylums were emptied out to save taxpayer money for the highest bracket citizens. Mental health care is expensive if done correctly. I would like to compare how mental health treatments are handled in Sweden or Japan and the US. And also what % of GDP is dedicated to it in various countries. Mental health care costs starting at a young age could pay dividends later with an adult that is less inclined to commit crimes of gun violence and mass-murders. The cost could offset each other leaving society more stable.

[jimjamuser]

Armed citizens stop 2.5 million violent crimes every year. It is estimated that half or more saved at least one life. 3.7 million homes are broken into every year. The typical home invasion occurs between 10am and 3 pm. in 1 million of the home invasions the people are home and 270,000 of them become the victim of a violent crime. 46.5% involve weapons, 38.2% involve firearms. That means 1,413,400 home invasions involve an armed intruder. Approximately 1,000 people are murdered each year during a home invasion.

Armed citizens stop a lot of crimes every year and save a lot of lives. If I'm faced with an armed assailant, I want a semi-automatic with an extra magazine.
Never has a person who survived a gun fight complained of having too much ammo and never have they wished for an inferior weapon.

What are the chances you will ever face an armed assailant?
Answer: Not zero.
In the unlikely dream world that I talked about where everyone (good guy or bad) had access to only single-shot firearms - then in an armed home invasion both the good and bad person would be equally armed. So, that would be neither a positive for society nor a negative. The REAL POSITIVE benefit to society would be that schools and churches and large gatherings would be MUCH safer because the mass murderer would reload S-L-O-W-L-Y. which would allow bystanders to physically assault and STOP him. So single-shot firearms would be a net big positive for society. I offer this up as just a thought experiment. It is VERY much the same for the decision to prevent most citizens from owning automatic firearms. In this case the LOWER tech the better. This is the same idea that the world leaders use when they want no more nuclear-armed countries. Another case where low-tech is preferable!

[jimjamuser]

He was scared about collateral damage if he took the shot.
Thank you. And also, a good example of why Police should carry rubber bullets and short shotguns to deal with various possible situations. I wonder if a small stun grenade or an exploding spray of teat gas would have been useful in that situation. Or even a bean bag shot from a shotgun or a shotgun shell loaded with sand???? Just brainstorming stuff.

[Aces4]

Yes. but, I don't want to go too far out into the weeds for SOLUTIONS.

Point being, if there are mental health issues, simply removing a gun won’t work. If they are ill and determined, there are far worse tactics they will use. A gun may be less lethal than other methods that may be employed… the Oklahoma bombing tragedy comes to mind among other schemes.

[Sarah_W]

OK, I just took a QUICK lap around my GOOGLE machine and......the Institute of Medicine said that in 2020 - 98,000 US people were killed by Medical ERRORS.

The House Oversite Committee said that recent mass murders totaled 234 people. These were at Uvalde, Las Vegas, Orlando Sandy Hook, Buffalo, Highland Park. Parkland, Sab Bernadino, Southerland Springs, and Boulder.

In 2019 the US had 4.12 gun homicides per 100,000 people
Israel had 1.05
Canada had .5
Australia had .18
The UK had .04

My mistake on the medical errors it appears I put in an extra zero. It should have said 300,000 people die every year from medical errors. Your Health Care May Kill You: Medical Errors - PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28186008/)

[Sarah_W]

I heard on TV that one officer (a school officer, I think) saw the Uvalde shooter walking outside after he had sent some shots at people in an adjacent parking lot. For some reason (?), that officer did NOT shoot at him. I believe that I heard that the shot was too long. There were a lot of changes to the story as time went on, so this may or may not be true.

This bothered me a great deal when I read the ALERRT report on Uvalde. That is the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training center. This is the training center law enforcement sends officers to for rapid response such as mass shootings. Their assessment of the Police response to the Uvalde shooting will anger any adult who cares for innocent victims especially children. You are correct. Ramos crashed the pickup into a ditch. Two employees from a funeral home walked toward him to see if they could help. He took shots at them and they ran back. An officer witnessed this. There is video cam from the officer of Ramos leaving the truck and walking across a field toward the school carrying his rifle.

The distance from the officer to Ramos was 146 yards. He had Ramos in his sights and called his supervisor for permission to take the shot. His supervisor did not respond. The officer called again and by the time he got a response, Ramos had entered the school. This is the point where lack of training failed those children and teachers. The officer knows Ramos took shots at two people, is walking toward a school and is armed and dangerous. He should NOT have called for permission. The officer had an AR and 146 yards is a very easy shot to make. It sickens me that he did not take the shot and avoid the mass shooting all together.

Of the approximately 400 officers who responded to the call that day, they all failed. One of the first officers who arrived tried to engage Ramos but did NOT have support from his fellow officers and when it took concrete shrapnel to his head, he retreated. What followed his actions was nothing short of cowardice.

[Sarah_W]

If mass murders keep increasing and become a much BIGGER problem than today, then the US will begin buy-backs and destruction of the weapons causing the most problems like Australia did after their mass murders. At some point in the future the US may HAVE to ask .......do they preserve American society or do they preserve the right for every citizen to own a military man-killing weapon? Everything in life is a trade off or balance..

I don't see that happening. Forced buy back is the same thing as gun confiscation. The term is comical actually since the government didn't sell the guns in the first place they can't "buy back". I do not see this ever happening in our country. I can't fathom the loss of life from the people who would refuse to surrender their guns added to the loss of life from those trying to confiscate them.

Let's use some critical thinking here. As we know most mass shootings are done with handguns. If you think Americans would ever surrender handguns, well, I have no uncertainty the answer is no. Therefore, all of this effort is over AR styled rifles. Millions of dollars spent to try to ban them. I did the math in an earlier post but the reality is AR style rifles are responsible for 30-40 murders per year. So, the 77% of mass shootings would still occur and the 23% of killers who preferred to use an AR wouldn't have one and therefore would opt for handguns instead to do their mass shooting. What would we gain?

Let's start by hardening the schools, which is much more cost effective, and we begin by saving children.

[Sarah_W]

In the unlikely dream world that I talked about where everyone (good guy or bad) had access to only single-shot firearms - then in an armed home invasion both the good and bad person would be equally armed. So, that would be neither a positive for society nor a negative. The REAL POSITIVE benefit to society would be that schools and churches and large gatherings would be MUCH safer because the mass murderer would reload S-L-O-W-L-Y. which would allow bystanders to physically assault and STOP him. So single-shot firearms would be a net big positive for society. I offer this up as just a thought experiment. It is VERY much the same for the decision to prevent most citizens from owning automatic firearms. In this case the LOWER tech the better. This is the same idea that the world leaders use when they want no more nuclear-armed countries. Another case where low-tech is preferable!

In the words of Col. Jeff Cooper, if you find yourself in a fair fight your tactics suck.

[RickyLee]

It is not your knowledge of the constitution it is your interpretation. As stated earlier, you are biased, and starting this thread was a waste of time.
If it was actually such a waste of time, why would you take the time to respond? I have not personally responded to any of the posts in this thread, but I have read each and every one and I find it very interesting.

[RickyLee]

If mass murders keep increasing and become a much BIGGER problem than today, then the US will begin buy-backs and destruction of the weapons causing the most problems like Australia did after their mass murders. At some point in the future the US may HAVE to ask .......do they preserve American society or do they preserve the right for every citizen to own a military man-killing weapon? Everything in life is a trade off or balance..

so if Susie JoBob owns a high end chassis rifle accessorized with high quality optics, a suppressor, a bi-pod and other competition accessories. Maybe he/she owns multiple high end competition weapons. When the confiscation time comes or even a buyback, do you really think he she will be compensated fairly? Maybe he she should just lose their investment? How about when they outlaw combustion vehicles and they come to take your Mercedes and your Lexus and your kids Nissan should they compensate you fairly? How will this be funded? Who will pay for it?

[Taltarzac725]

Who said anything about confiscating weapons? Stopping the sale of certain ones and maybe holding gun manufacturers and sellers liable for foreseeable injuries.



so if Susie JoBob owns a high end chassis rifle accessorized with high quality optics, a suppressor, a bi-pod and other competition accessories. Maybe he/she owns multiple high end competition weapons. When the confiscation time comes or even a buyback, do you really think he she will be compensated fairly? Maybe he she should just lose their investment? How about when they outlaw combustion vehicles and they come to take your Mercedes and your Lexus and your kids Nissan should they compensate you fairly? How will this be funded? Who will pay for it?

[Woodbear]

I find it humorous when the uneducated call for military style or AR/AK weapon ban. There is nothing available off the shelf today in a plastic scary black configuration that is any different than its wood stock version. I can put racing decals and a number on my Camry, but that does not make it a NASCAR. In the picture below, we have the same gun in differing stocks. Same projectile, same action system, and same barrel configuration. Nothing differentiates the lethality of one gun over the other. The guns that so many want to ban is nothing but a "normal" gun in a scary black costume.

[Woodbear]

Who said anything about confiscating weapons? Stopping the sale of certain ones and maybe holding gun manufacturers and sellers liable for foreseeable injuries.

Why would we hold the manufacturer of an inanimate object liable? Did the weapon load itself? Did it discharge itself? Did it aim itself at the victim?

Do we hold GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda or Dodge liable for their contribution to drunk driving deaths? NO.......why, because they were not the responsible party.

A legal item manufacturer should NEVER be held responsible for its item being used by an individual in an illegal manner.

[Two Bills]

Australians are almost as suppressed as Russians and Chinese, I doubt you would be happy with that much government interference, although you may find out sooner than you think

You really need to change the website you get your erroneous information from.
I can think of may adjectives to describe Australia, and Australians, (Specially when they beat us at cricket!)
But 'Suppressed?'
You really haven't a clue what you are talking about!:ohdear:

[CFrance]

Australians are almost as suppressed as Russians and Chinese, I doubt you would be happy with that much government interference, although you may find out sooner than you think
Where does this information come from? I have American family members who have lived in Australia for 15 years. We've spent many months there.

Your statement is so not true. What a crock.

[jedalton]

the bad guys always find a way around the law.

[Luggage]

The Kennedy assassination

[Luggage]

The Kennedy assassination etc

[Bay Kid]

In the end our enemies would like to make sure Americans do not have any guns. Then only the crooks, military and China/Russia have guns. Then with the help of all the illegal young people placed all around America we can be overtaken with ease.

[ThirdOfFive]

It would seem plausible to consider our USA gun-related deaths per capita with all other countries. For those countries that have lower gun-related deaths per capita, it would mean following up with the philosophy behind the gun controls in those countries. If we really want change, it's important to uncover those countries who are doing it the way that reduces the amount of deaths. Is that something that you'd be willing to do?
Perhaps we'd be looking in the wrong direction.

America has a gun homicide rate of 5.9 per 100,000, and we have relatively non-restrictive gun laws. However the two countries in the Americas right behind us in population, Brazil and Mexico, have very RESTRICTIVE gun laws. You'd expect them to have a lower homicide rate per 100,000, but they don't: Mexico, with only two gun stores in the entire country and where owning a gun legally means exhaustive paperwork and months of waiting, has a gun homicide rate nearly twice ours at 11.1 per 100,000, while Brazil, where the minimum age to own a gun is 25, every gun purchased has to have a license (which is purchased and renewed at significant cost), and where even carrying a gun outside is limited to special groups such as police, has TRIPLE our rate at 18.5. per 100,000.

Guns are only a tool. Limiting them does NOT necessarily reduce the crimes committed with them.

[pendi99]

We need to reopen mental health facilities where the worst are housed

[ThirdOfFive]

Why would we hold the manufacturer of an inanimate object liable? Did the weapon load itself? Did it discharge itself? Did it aim itself at the victim?

Do we hold GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda or Dodge liable for their contribution to drunk driving deaths? NO.......why, because they were not the responsible party.

A legal item manufacturer should NEVER be held responsible for its item being used by an individual in an illegal manner.
That particular boat sailed in 2005.

"The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a U.S law, passed in 2005, that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. Both arms manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime." (Wikipedia)

[fcgiii]

Where did the 77 percent come from? If you look at all the past shootings they all had guns that shot multiple bullets! Name a time where someone had a gun that shot one bullet at a time?
John Wilkes Booth in 1865 comes to mind

[ThirdOfFive]

Why would we hold the manufacturer of an inanimate object liable? Did the weapon load itself? Did it discharge itself? Did it aim itself at the victim?

Do we hold GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda or Dodge liable for their contribution to drunk driving deaths? NO.......why, because they were not the responsible party.

A legal item manufacturer should NEVER be held responsible for its item being used by an individual in an illegal manner.
That particular boat sailed in 2005.

"The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a U.S law, passed in 2005, that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. Both arms manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime." (Wikipedia)

[fcgiii]

It would be an interesting beginning conversation. I think we have to step back for a moment and recognize that when firearms were removed from public ownership, did the murders stop? In other words, if you take away people's guns, are they then murdering people with knives, hammers, etc.

Murder per capita would be a good variable to look at. If someone murders my child or my spouse I am not concerned with the tool or instrument they used to kill my loved one. If someone stabs my daughter, strangles my daughter, or shoots her with a semi-automatic rifle, the funeral and burial are all the same. The seat is still empty at the table on Thanksgiving. That is why I focus on the evil heart that would take another's life.

The national conversation is about mass shootings right now although they make up 0.2% of the murders, meaning that 99.8% of murders will still occur even if we managed to eliminate mass shootings. The next level of the national conversation is AR style rifles, yet we know that 75-85% of mass shootings are done with handguns. If we break that down to real numbers it looks like this: 45,000 people in the US are killed by firearms. 54% of those were suicide. My opinion on suicide is that if a person is committed to kill themselves they will still do it. We now have 22,500 murders by firearms. I've read 70-80% of the murders are gang and drug related. I don't think most of us are in gangs. We are not left with 5,625 actual murders by firearms. That is consistent with the FBI figure of 6,000. As noted by EveryTown, 0.2% are mass shootings. That means each year 120 people are murdered as a result of mass shootings. 75% are done with handguns. That leaves us with 30 people being murdered each year during a mass shooting with an AR style rifle.

Every statistic above is horriic. But which number is most important? The media would have us to believe that the 30 people killed on average each year with an AR style rifle is the most important. Removing all AR styled rifles will save 30 people per year but what about the other 45,000? Do we not address that? How can I help you sleep at night without you infringing on my Constitutional Rights?

What is the goal then, really? Being murdered by a firearm isn't even in the top ten for cause of death in our country.

We can put things into perspective as well. 3,000,000 people die every year from medical mistakes/errors. You are 133 times more likely to be killed by your doctor than a thug with a gun. 91,800 people died last year from opioid overdose. You are 4 times more likely to die of an opioid overdose that being shot by a thug.

We can look at the mortality schedules at the CDC website. Being murdered doesn't even make their list of the top 10 ways to die. Heart disease is #1. Maybe we should ban bacon. Wow, that would be a bummer!

ETA: Sorry for the long post. While we are talking about per capita, it would also be prudent to look at the major cities that drive our murder rates.
Excellent post in a very useful and informative discussion

[NoMo50]

Where did the 77 percent come from? If you look at all the past shootings they all had guns that shot multiple bullets! Name a time where someone had a gun that shot one bullet at a time?

Your knowledge of firearms appears to be quite limited. Virtually all firearms only fire one round at a time. Only one projectile can travel down the barrel at a time. An exception would be a shotgun, where multiple pellets are discharged with each round fired.

I suspect your concern lies with the rate of fire of a particular weapon. Mass shootings involving fully automatic weapons, i.e., machine guns, are about as rare as lottery winners. A semi automatic weapon fires one round with each pull of the trigger. A fully automatic weapon will continue to fire as long as the trigger is held back, but still sends rounds down the barrel one at a time. Again, it is the rate of fire.

So...if the argument is that we should only allow firearms that fire more slowly, should that be revolvers? There are a great many proficient shooters who can fire a revolver every bit as fast as any semi automatic weapon. Is the desire to ban the AR platform rifles because they accept 30-round, or more, magazines? Are you familiar with the concept of reloading? If magazines were limited to 5 rounds, would a committed shooter not just carry more magazines? The Glock 19 is a very popular semi automatic pistol, used by law enforcement and private citizens alike. Each magazine holds 19 rounds of 9mm ammunition. A person could easily carry 10 extra magazines, providing over 200 rounds. In addition, this pistol can be reloaded with a fresh magazine in less than one second.

My point is simple: Once you start banning firearms, it will not stop until all firearms are effectively banned. Then, the old adage will come true...only outlaws will have guns. Murder is already illegal, yet that law does not stop a committed killer. Why would a gun ban stop him?

[bark4me]

Given your profile picture we know where your bias is at. No thanks not interested in engaging with an obviously biased original poster with some sort of agenda.

Looks like you already did

[bark4me]

Looks like all this started when they took The Pledge of Allegiance and Prayer out in schools

[Jacob85]

Where did you get your 77 percent statement? I would question that

[Veiragirl]

Reinstate the assault weapons ban it was a reasonable law until Bush allowed it to sunset now it’s out of control!

Totally agree!

[fcgiii]

What is a mass murder event? One that hits the national media.

Are guns the problem? Not for Timothy McVey.

What is an assault rifle? A semiautomatic rifle whose name starts with AR.

What happens when you outlaw guns? Then only outlaws …

Oh, you know the thing

[SHIBUMI]

Sounds like you are solving all the worlds issues. First, the forefathers had muskets. If they were around today they would not agree with the gun laws. Why does anyone need an ar/ak or multiple firing pistols except army and police. They don't!

Governors can solve these problems by putting a $25,000 tax on ar/ak and a $10,000 tax on multiple firing pistols. Combined with a background check. Age 21 and older

There are things you will never regulate so you use taxes to do that.

Also, women need to understand and follow birth control to lower abortion rates.

what other balloons can we float?






What is a mass murder event? One that hits the national media.

Are guns the problem? Not for Timothy McVey.

What is an assault rifle? A semiautomatic rifle whose name starts with AR.

What happens when you outlaw guns? Then only outlaws …

Oh, you know the thing

[Byte1]

Where did the 77 percent come from? If you look at all the past shootings they all had guns that shot multiple bullets! Name a time where someone had a gun that shot one bullet at a time?

Wrong! Semi-automatic weapons shoot only ONE bullet at a time. Fully automatic weapons are not/have not been used in murders in a very long time....decades.....before they were federally restricted in ownership. This is the problem we have today, ignorance of the equipment being used by murderers. No offense meant, just a correction.

[Byte1]

Actually, Australia and some other countries have solved the problem of mass murder events. I keep saying that because it is not GENERALLY known to Americans. I rarely hear that mentioned on TV in connection with these events. If you look at a graph of which countries have gun crime problems the US is over double the next country.
Also, a graph of gun ownership by country shows that the US has 1.2 guns in civilian hands PER person. That is WAY more than Canada, Mexico, or any other 1st world country,

To give a very crude summary.......The US is the PROBLEM and Australia is the SOLUTION.

Australia, Australia again and again. Lovely country. But, it is not "like" America, is it? Stopping Mass Murders is the goal, but hardly the root cause or the major crime factor. Mass murders are bad, but we have a lot more murders than that of "mass murders." Australia did not STOP murders by taking away the people's right to gun ownership. It only stopped a very small percentage of murders by penalizing the WHOLE population of the country. Most stats enjoy mentioning "per capita" when they make their charts, etc. They say that since there is an increase in population, there is a decrease "per capita" in killings/murder. They don't mention that there are still almost the same amount of murders, just not "per capita." Getting back to "mass murders" how about comparing them to the total amount of murders in the country instead of spotlighting how many folks are killed at one time? Of course, it is a shame that children in schools are being killed, but that is more of a blame that they are not being protected and cannot protect themselves. If you set up a game preserve in a park and put up a sign saying "No hunting" will that stop poachers? It will only stop decent, law abiding citizens from hunting in the game preserve. How do you stop the poaching? Do you take away all the instruments of hunting from everyone? No, you put up high fencing and patrol the land with security, maybe even installing security cameras. Is anyone really serious about protecting our children or are they just USING the children as an excuse to take away the tools of hunting and self defense from good people?
I have said this over and over again, if you wish to hinder/stop most if not all school shootings, harden their security. Tell me how this won't work? Is putting up a high fence and a guard at the gate too expensive? C'mon, man!
This is NOT Australia. Australia has not eliminated murder and eliminating mass murder by taking means of self defense away is only going to create MORE murders by other methods. If you take a gun away from ALL hunters, then the poachers will just use cross bows in the game preserve, if it is not fenced and guarded.
Protect the children and stop their being victims of "mass murders" by REAL protection, not make believe remedies.

[Byte1]

If the U.S.A. kept the missile defense system in place in Eastern Europe, would Russia still have invaded Ukraine? I realize that Ukraine is not NATO, but..........

[Annie66]

What do we do when that doesn't work? What is an assault weapon? What is a truly heinous crime?

Are we going to parse words here? I believe most readers understood my definition of an assault weapon as a semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine capable of firing a high rate of fire. Heinous crimes can be defined as any crime resulting serious injuries or death; often to multiple people. The injures can be either physical or mental damage as a result of the event.

[Taltarzac725]

Are we going to parse words here? I believe most readers understood my definition of an assault weapon as a semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine capable of firing a high rate of fire. Heinous crimes can be defined as any crime resulting serious injuries or death; often to multiple people. The injures can be either physical or mental damage as a result of the event.


How these are being marketed would be interesting.

[Byte1]

Are we going to parse words here? I believe most readers understood my definition of an assault weapon as a semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine capable of firing a high rate of fire. Heinous crimes can be defined as any crime resulting serious injuries or death; often to multiple people. The injures can be either physical or mental damage as a result of the event.

Ok, some would say that an "assault weapon" is any weapon capable of being used to "assault" someone. That would include but not be limited to, muskets, hunting rifles, swords, knives, bb and pellet guns, arrows, spears, baseball bats, axes, screw drivers (used in NY subway in one incident that was in the news), sharpened toothbrushes (as used in jails) whips, chains, etc. The definition is dependent upon the opinion of whomever decides to define "assault weapon." Let's not forget hand grenades, Molotov cocktails, acid, automobiles. Although, for the convenience of the unlearned, an assault weapon defined here is any spooky gun with a plastic stock that looks like a military gun and fires noisy bullets, and pistols that look complicated and fire more than five bullets by other means than manually loading a bullet into the chamber in order to fire it.
A "heinous" crime could be anything from taking a life to saying something mean to someone.
To those of us that have some (if limited) experience with firearms, an assault weapon would be an automatic firing weapon that fires more than one round per single application of the trigger. A semi-automatic weapon does NOT fire more than one round per trigger pull.
It is usually the subject ignorant person that wishes to ban something they have no comprehension of, which also causes them fear and apprehension.

[SHIBUMI]

the point was to tax them.......semantics is what causes no action to be taken......money talks....discussion gets nothing done other than allowing people to vent....no solution

[jimjamuser]

He was scared about collateral damage if he took the shot.
In the near future, there may be more developments in non-lethal weapons. The police may be able to send in some remote control type of robot armed with some type of non-lethal weapons. it looked like that was needed in Uvalde, where the Police were not decisive enough about the situation. A remote control door and wall demolishing robot would have also been useful. Even making a hole in the wall big enough to send in a few tear gas grenades would have helped.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

In the end our enemies would like to make sure Americans do not have any guns. Then only the crooks, military and China/Russia have guns. Then with the help of all the illegal young people placed all around America we can be overtaken with ease.

Either that, or they can encourage people who shouldn't have guns, to get lots of them, and throw billions at lobbyists to ensure that this happens.

Then, everyone in the states can just kill each other off, and "our enemies" don't have to get their hands bloodied. They just come in and loot the place.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

What is a mass murder event? One that hits the national media.

Are guns the problem? Not for Timothy McVey.

What is an assault rifle? A semiautomatic rifle whose name starts with AR.

What happens when you outlaw guns? Then only outlaws …

Oh, you know the thing

So when it happens to your kids/grandkids/nieces or nephews or "any kid you might possibly give a crap about" while they're in school one day...

You'll just shrug it off. Afterall, boys will be boys, but dangit they have the right to their gun!

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Are we going to parse words here? I believe most readers understood my definition of an assault weapon as a semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine capable of firing a high rate of fire. Heinous crimes can be defined as any crime resulting serious injuries or death; often to multiple people. The injures can be either physical or mental damage as a result of the event.

None of it matters. It's a strawman, a red herring, a logical fallacy.

The "problem" has nothing to do with definitions of anything at all. The "problem" is that people who shouldn't have firearms, have them anyway, and are using them to do what firearms are built to do: kill. They're killing people, with devices that are intended to kill, that is their primary function, the thing they were created to do. And they're killing people with a device that they shouldn't be allowed to have.

Any device that's *primary* function is to kill, should require that you have proven capable and qualified, in every way, shape, and form, to accept the responsibility of having such a device. And that means background checks and licensing with actual tests for competency using the device.

The "problem" in this specific thread, is that it exists to deflect from the actual problem.

[jimjamuser]

Point being, if there are mental health issues, simply removing a gun won’t work. If they are ill and determined, there are far worse tactics they will use. A gun may be less lethal than other methods that may be employed… the Oklahoma bombing tragedy comes to mind among other schemes.
Not counting car bombs or pressure cooker bombs........ a blunt instrument like a hammer would not be a weapon of choice for a mass murderer - it would be more likely a spur of the moment of passion type of weapon of choice. Because bystanders would be more likely to quickly intervene against some killer swinging a hammer than a killer holding a firearm. The most effective firearm of choice would be a semi-auto rifle or one with a bump stop device attached.

.....Why is a semi-automatic rifle a more effective weapon of choice as opposed to handguns? The rifle gives a killer a greater separation distance from the crowd that he targeted. Thus giving the opportunity to gain the best position so as NOT to be easily counterattacked by Police or civilians. The shooter in the suburb of Chicago that dressed as a woman was at the top of a building and had a low wall in front of himself for protection. The Las Vegas shooter killed 60 people from the window of an elevated hotel building. He used rifles and a bump stop accessory.
.....Five or so people in a crowd could be killed by a demented person running through a crowd using a handgun or handguns, but it would be more likely that someone in the crowd could stop them than someone using a rifle from distance and a better position. A more simple way to look at the rifle vs pistol question - is that Army snipers use rifles, not pistols. A greater % of all murders may be perpetrated by pistols than rifles, but the AR-15 type rifle and the AK-47 are the weapons of choice for the DOMESTIC terrorist rifle. These rifles are the firearms that are causing the MOST FEAR AND APPREHENSION among children returning to school soon and what most comes to an adult's mind when they are inside a church or at a large public event. Basically, the TERROR component for those RIFLES is greater than for PISTOLS. The smartest course for America to do is to discontinue the sales of semi-auto rifles, remove those found by police during crimes, and do buybacks in a way similar to that done by Australia and many other countries that have reduced their mass murder events to near ZERO !

[jimjamuser]

My mistake on the medical errors it appears I put in an extra zero. It should have said 300,000 people die every year from medical errors. Your Health Care May Kill You: Medical Errors - PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28186008/)
Yes, 300,000 sounds more reasonable and there could be a reporting range depending on definitions.

[jimjamuser]

I don't see that happening. Forced buy back is the same thing as gun confiscation. The term is comical actually since the government didn't sell the guns in the first place they can't "buy back". I do not see this ever happening in our country. I can't fathom the loss of life from the people who would refuse to surrender their guns added to the loss of life from those trying to confiscate them.

Let's use some critical thinking here. As we know most mass shootings are done with handguns. If you think Americans would ever surrender handguns, well, I have no uncertainty the answer is no. Therefore, all of this effort is over AR styled rifles. Millions of dollars spent to try to ban them. I did the math in an earlier post but the reality is AR style rifles are responsible for 30-40 murders per year. So, the 77% of mass shootings would still occur and the 23% of killers who preferred to use an AR wouldn't have one and therefore would opt for handguns instead to do their mass shooting. What would we gain?

Let's start by hardening the schools, which is much more cost effective, and we begin by saving children.
In the Las Vegas shooting 60 people were killed. It was done basically with a rifle - the preferred weapon of choice by killers PLANNING to kill large numbers of unrelated people. That PRODUCES terror and has people running and panicking when they hear a car backfire and they are in a crowd. The large mass murder PLANNED events of DOMESTIC terrorists are what has people looking over their shoulders at sports events, concerts, and churches.

Pistols are more likely to be involved in UNPLANNED murders of fewer people than rifles.
........I am NOT suggesting confiscation. What I am suggesting is that at the present day DRAMATIC increased rate of mass murders, eventually, society will be forced to say, "no mas" and strike a BALANCE between the insatiable greed of the gun manufacturers and the rights of Americans to NOT be gunned down in public !

[jimjamuser]

In the words of Col. Jeff Cooper, if you find yourself in a fair fight your tactics suck.
That is an older quote from an older time that was applicable when DOMESTIC terror was much less of a problem. And actually, most Police complain about the fact that they are OUTGUNNED by the bad guys. So today Mr. Cooper might agree that because of manufacturers' greed and too many guns on the street in 18-year-old hands that the bad guys have flipped the script on the good guys.

[jimjamuser]

I find it humorous when the uneducated call for military style or AR/AK weapon ban. There is nothing available off the shelf today in a plastic scary black configuration that is any different than its wood stock version. I can put racing decals and a number on my Camry, but that does not make it a NASCAR. In the picture below, we have the same gun in differing stocks. Same projectile, same action system, and same barrel configuration. Nothing differentiates the lethality of one gun over the other. The guns that so many want to ban is nothing but a "normal" gun in a scary black costume.
That is exactly why Australia and many other counties made laws against all semi-automatic rifles and did buybacks. Then their mass murder events dropped to nearly zero

[jimjamuser]

so if Susie JoBob owns a high end chassis rifle accessorized with high quality optics, a suppressor, a bi-pod and other competition accessories. Maybe he/she owns multiple high end competition weapons. When the confiscation time comes or even a buyback, do you really think he she will be compensated fairly? Maybe he she should just lose their investment? How about when they outlaw combustion vehicles and they come to take your Mercedes and your Lexus and your kids Nissan should they compensate you fairly? How will this be funded? Who will pay for it?
Crime and criminal activity and mass murder and DOMESTIC terrorism also cost society in America lots of MONEY.

[jimjamuser]

Why would we hold the manufacturer of an inanimate object liable? Did the weapon load itself? Did it discharge itself? Did it aim itself at the victim?

Do we hold GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda or Dodge liable for their contribution to drunk driving deaths? NO.......why, because they were not the responsible party.

A legal item manufacturer should NEVER be held responsible for its item being used by an individual in an illegal manner.
Australia and other counties NOT led around by the nose by the NRA solved that very problem by making certain classes of firearms illegal. If DOMESTIC terrorism continues to increase as it has in the last 2 years the American people's need for less bloodshed will override the greed of the NRA.

[Sarah_W]

Where did you get your 77 percent statement? I would question that

There are several sources one can look at.
The federal government states 77.2% Public Mass Shootings: Database Amasses Details of a Half Century of U.S. Mass Shootings with Firearms, Generating Psychosocial Histories | National Institute of Justice (https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/public-mass-shootings-database-amasses-details-half-century-us-mass-shootings)


EveryTown is a gun control organization. They state 81% are with handguns.

https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/t331/sarahwilliamson2005/Screen_Shot_2022-07-31_at_4.50.57_PM.png?width=960&height=720&fit=bounds (https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/t331/sarahwilliamson2005/Screen_Shot_2022-07-31_at_4.50.57_PM.png?width=960&height=720&fit=bounds)

I do my best to be very realistic with my calculations and choose the lower number.

[jimjamuser]

the bad guys always find a way around the law.
If that were true then no bad guys would be in prison and we would not need prisons.

[jimjamuser]

We need to reopen mental health facilities where the worst are housed
Did we not have an earlier post that correctly stated that the mentally ill are more likely to be abused than to do the abuse?

[Biker Guy CJI]

Given your profile picture we know where your bias is at. No thanks not interested in engaging with an obviously biased original poster with some sort of agenda.

Then why did you? So you can feel good about yourself

[Sarah_W]

Sounds like you are solving all the worlds issues. First, the forefathers had muskets. If they were around today they would not agree with the gun laws. Why does anyone need an ar/ak or multiple firing pistols except army and police. They don't!

Governors can solve these problems by putting a $25,000 tax on ar/ak and a $10,000 tax on multiple firing pistols. Combined with a background check. Age 21 and older

There are things you will never regulate so you use taxes to do that.

Also, women need to understand and follow birth control to lower abortion rates.

what other balloons can we float?

First, it would be unconstitutional to tax a Right. Secondly, read up on the Stamp Act of 1765 for a little background on how the people react to unfair taxation. It was pivotal in leading up to 1776.

Maybe we should do a $25,000 tax on electric cars because lithium mining is terrible. Maybe we should do a $25,000 tax on wind turbines because lots of birds die from those.
Maybe we should do a $25,000 tax on solar panels because they are wreaking havoc now in landfills.

[jimjamuser]

How these are being marketed would be interesting.
The one that the young boy in Uvalde used was marketed especially to young males. And there is BIG money for all the AR-15 style and AK-47 weapons' and accessories' advertisements because the profit margin is SO MUCH greater than for plain-Jane wooden-stock hunting rifles.

[Sarah_W]

None of it matters. It's a strawman, a red herring, a logical fallacy.

The "problem" has nothing to do with definitions of anything at all. The "problem" is that people who shouldn't have firearms, have them anyway, and are using them to do what firearms are built to do: kill. They're killing people, with devices that are intended to kill, that is their primary function, the thing they were created to do. And they're killing people with a device that they shouldn't be allowed to have.

Any device that's *primary* function is to kill, should require that you have proven capable and qualified, in every way, shape, and form, to accept the responsibility of having such a device. And that means background checks and licensing with actual tests for competency using the device.

The "problem" in this specific thread, is that it exists to deflect from the actual problem.

It seems when there is no substantive debate the response is It's not a real debate, It's a strawman, It's red herring.

Identifying the solution begins with people having knowledge on the topic at hand. Too many people have extremely emotional reactions to events they barely understand. To exacerbate the issue, they don't even try.

[Sarah_W]

Not counting car bombs or pressure cooker bombs........ a blunt instrument like a hammer would not be a weapon of choice for a mass murderer - it would be more likely a spur of the moment of passion type of weapon of choice. Because bystanders would be more likely to quickly intervene against some killer swinging a hammer than a killer holding a firearm. The most effective firearm of choice would be a semi-auto rifle or one with a bump stop device attached.

.....Why is a semi-automatic rifle a more effective weapon of choice as opposed to handguns? The rifle gives a killer a greater separation distance from the crowd that he targeted. Thus giving the opportunity to gain the best position so as NOT to be easily counterattacked by Police or civilians. The shooter in the suburb of Chicago that dressed as a woman was at the top of a building and had a low wall in front of himself for protection. The Las Vegas shooter killed 60 people from the window of an elevated hotel building. He used rifles and a bump stop accessory.
.....Five or so people in a crowd could be killed by a demented person running through a crowd using a handgun or handguns, but it would be more likely that someone in the crowd could stop them than someone using a rifle from distance and a better position. A more simple way to look at the rifle vs pistol question - is that Army snipers use rifles, not pistols. A greater % of all murders may be perpetrated by pistols than rifles, but the AR-15 type rifle and the AK-47 are the weapons of choice for the DOMESTIC terrorist rifle. These rifles are the firearms that are causing the MOST FEAR AND APPREHENSION among children returning to school soon and what most comes to an adult's mind when they are inside a church or at a large public event. Basically, the TERROR component for those RIFLES is greater than for PISTOLS. The smartest course for America to do is to discontinue the sales of semi-auto rifles, remove those found by police during crimes, and do buybacks in a way similar to that done by Australia and many other countries that have reduced their mass murder events to near ZERO !

The Vegas shooting and Highland Park shooting are not average mass shootings. The Vegas shooting resulted in 473 casualties and the Highland shooting resulted in 55 casualties. The average mass shooting results in 10 casualties. The average mass shooting does not occur from a rooftop or the 32nd floor. The average mass shooting happens in a confined space with most mass shootings occurring in the home.

That is why 77% of mass shootings are done with a handgun. It doesn't make sense to use a semi-automatic rifle in a home, church, or nightclub. I would like to know how much planning goes into a mass murderer's intention. In my humble opinion the Greenwood Mall shooting was poorly planned. An AR-15 doesn't make sense in a mall, beginning with the food court. Let's look at the logistics. Let's assume he carried the AR under a trench coat and 10 mags loaded with 30 rounds each. That would give him 300 rounds with a total weight of 11 pounds for ammo and the rifle at 6.5 pounds for a total of nearly 18 pounds. That doesn't seem difficult other than being tricky to hide the AR.

A Glock 19 weighs 1.5 pounds. 9 magazines holding 33 rounds of 9mm weighs 8.25 pounds. That would be a total of 9.75 pounds, or roughly half the weight of an AR setup and easier to hide it all in a back pack. I would think this is all considered in the planning stage.

[Sarah_W]

In the Las Vegas shooting 60 people were killed. It was done basically with a rifle - the preferred weapon of choice by killers PLANNING to kill large numbers of unrelated people. That PRODUCES terror and has people running and panicking when they hear a car backfire and they are in a crowd. The large mass murder PLANNED events of DOMESTIC terrorists are what has people looking over their shoulders at sports events, concerts, and churches.

Pistols are more likely to be involved in UNPLANNED murders of fewer people than rifles.
........I am NOT suggesting confiscation. What I am suggesting is that at the present day DRAMATIC increased rate of mass murders, eventually, society will be forced to say, "no mas" and strike a BALANCE between the insatiable greed of the gun manufacturers and the rights of Americans to NOT be gunned down in public !

Approximately 6,000 people are murdered every year with a firearm. According to FBI of those 6,000 murders, 340 are done with rifles of ALL types. From 2007-2017, 173 people were killed by an AR style rifle. That is an average of 17.3 per year during that decade. The fact of the matter is AR style rifles are rarely used in murders of any kind.

Estimates are there are about 20 million AR's in the country, yet it is rare to be used in murder. The solution you are proposing is to deny millions of Americans their Constitutional right to own an AR while have a negligible effect on murders. That solution is not logical to me and unacceptable to law abiding citizens such as myself.

[Sarah_W]

That is an older quote from an older time that was applicable when DOMESTIC terror was much less of a problem. And actually, most Police complain about the fact that they are OUTGUNNED by the bad guys. So today Mr. Cooper might agree that because of manufacturers' greed and too many guns on the street in 18-year-old hands that the bad guys have flipped the script on the good guys.

I do not believe most Police complain of being Outgunned. What do you think the bad guys have that the Police don't have?

Capitalism is based on supply and demand. Gun manufacturers are a business like any other seeking a reasonable profit. Where are you getting the "greed" comment from?

[Sarah_W]

Crime and criminal activity and mass murder and DOMESTIC terrorism also cost society in America lots of MONEY.

How much?

[Sarah_W]

The one that the young boy in Uvalde used was marketed especially to young males. And there is BIG money for all the AR-15 style and AK-47 weapons' and accessories' advertisements because the profit margin is SO MUCH greater than for plain-Jane wooden-stock hunting rifles.

How exactly is that marketing done?

What is the profit margin on an AR or AK?

What is the profit margin on wooden stocked rifles?

If you are going to make such claims please back them up with facts and citations.

[Sarah_W]

Yesterday, Jennifer Fernandez, 22 drove her car eastbound in the westbound lanes of I-90 and hit a van head-on containing a woman and five children. Everyone died at the scene.

Earlier this month 53 immigrants died in a semi-truck trailer in San Antonio.

The problem is these high capacity vehicles are killing a lot of people.

In 2021, 42, 915 people died in the US in vehicle crashes. Nobody needs a high capacity vehicle. You never hear of a motorcycle hitting another motorcycle head-on. You never hear of a motorcycle be responsible for mass killings. We can solve these mass killing events if everyone had a single occupant vehicle such as a motorcycle. Anyone below the age of 25 however should have a bicycle.

[Eg_cruz]

Given your profile picture we know where your bias is at. No thanks not interested in engaging with an obviously biased original poster with some sort of agenda.
Isn’t that exactly what you’re doing showing your bias off of someone’s photo

[Eg_cruz]

And that is the problem right there. That YOU have decided that the problem is a failure of uniform definition of the term "mass murder."

Here's the solution to that problem: stop insisting that's the problem. That's not the problem. The definition of "mass murder" doesn't matter a darned bit.

What matters is that people who shouldn't have had firearms, had them, and used them to kill people who they didn't have the right to kill.

That's the "problem."
I get your point and get his too.
His point is the media labels a shooting a mass murder of 4 or more whether it’s crimes of passion, family members, people they know versus someone intent to kill anybody within their site.
The media does this to scare the public to push the gun law agenda.
On the other hand you right killing 4 or more friend or stranger what does it matter that the are call the same thing.
It’s how you look at it.
I happen to agree with the OP, because I do think the media has an agenda.

[jimjamuser]

The Vegas shooting and Highland Park shooting are not average mass shootings. The Vegas shooting resulted in 473 casualties and the Highland shooting resulted in 55 casualties. The average mass shooting results in 10 casualties. The average mass shooting does not occur from a rooftop or the 32nd floor. The average mass shooting happens in a confined space with most mass shootings occurring in the home.

That is why 77% of mass shootings are done with a handgun. It doesn't make sense to use a semi-automatic rifle in a home, church, or nightclub. I would like to know how much planning goes into a mass murderer's intention. In my humble opinion the Greenwood Mall shooting was poorly planned. An AR-15 doesn't make sense in a mall, beginning with the food court. Let's look at the logistics. Let's assume he carried the AR under a trench coat and 10 mags loaded with 30 rounds each. That would give him 300 rounds with a total weight of 11 pounds for ammo and the rifle at 6.5 pounds for a total of nearly 18 pounds. That doesn't seem difficult other than being tricky to hide the AR.

A Glock 19 weighs 1.5 pounds. 9 magazines holding 33 rounds of 9mm weighs 8.25 pounds. That would be a total of 9.75 pounds, or roughly half the weight of an AR setup and easier to hide it all in a back pack. I would think this is all considered in the planning stage.
The rifle is by far the superior tool as compared to a pistol for a demented mass murderer that has a well-planned strategy for his killing spree. The key superiority of a RIFLE is the distance. A minimally trained killer could easily shoot into a crowd like at a July 4th parade from a DISTANCE of 50 to 200 yards away. I don't know the exact distance that the Las Vegas shooter was killing people at, but I would guess an average of 75 yards. An AR-15 RIFLE and the rifle cartridge that it fires are designed to hit a target at 100 to 200 yards with much more accuracy and terminal velocity than a PISTOL. The cartridge design for a RIFLE is bigger than a PISTOL cartridge - thus allowing MORE powder and therefore more VELOCITY at the muzzle and downrange. The very aerodynamic bullet design of most rifles allows the bullet to travel through 200 or more yards of air resistance with a flatter trajectory and less energy loss than a typical PISTOL bullet design.

A pistol in contrast is designed for hitting targets under 50 yards by a shooter with limited training. The sight radius between the front sight of a PISTOL is much shorter than that of a RIFLE - Thus making the pistol inherently less accurate than a rifle. The pistol cartridge normally has less powder than a rifle cartridge. So, the muzzle velocity is less for the pistol. The pistol bullet is normally shorter, blunter, and less aerodynamically configured than a rifle bullet. This gives a PISTOL bullet a less flat trajectory and less velocity and energy at 100 yards than a RIFLE bullet

Overall a pistol is a short-range firearm compared to a rifle. That is why military snipers, obviously, use rifles and NOT pistols.

[jimjamuser]

Approximately 6,000 people are murdered every year with a firearm. According to FBI of those 6,000 murders, 340 are done with rifles of ALL types. From 2007-2017, 173 people were killed by an AR style rifle. That is an average of 17.3 per year during that decade. The fact of the matter is AR style rifles are rarely used in murders of any kind.

Estimates are there are about 20 million AR's in the country, yet it is rare to be used in murder. The solution you are proposing is to deny millions of Americans their Constitutional right to own an AR while have a negligible effect on murders. That solution is not logical to me and unacceptable to law-abiding citizens such as myself.
As to the last sentence..........US people may change their minds as to how MUCH gun regulation they will accept - IF these mass-murder events continue to increase. The past can be a good predictor or the future. And the PAST 2 years have had LARGE increases in mass murders. So, likely, the near future will be a DISASTER with respect to DOMESTIC terrorism. People will get "up in arms" about the situation (no pun intended).

I keep repeating that Australia and other countries have SOLVED their domestic terrorism PROBLEM. Why can't the US ? I would tend to believe it is because of NRA propaganda emanating from the high profits made by the gun manufacturers. Australia and New Zealand never let the NRA (or similar organization) get their propaganda-dripping hooks into their society.

[jimjamuser]

I do not believe most Police complain of being Outgunned. What do you think the bad guys have that the Police don't have?

Capitalism is based on supply and demand. Gun manufacturers are a business like any other seeking a reasonable profit. Where are you getting the "greed" comment from?
Well, they have the element of surprise. That is the big thing. The Police are only reacting. The bad guys are initiating the TERROR. The Police in Uvalde were TERRORIZED. They were running backward in that hallway as if the devil incarnate was chasing them. They were AFRAID, Also, the terrorist COULD have silencers, bump-stops, and even 50 cal 2,000-yard sniper rifles, which are all LEGAL to possess. Police do NOT use those!

[Byte1]

Gun deaths in Australia were already on the down trend before gun control. In America, most of our gun related deaths are due to inner city gang shootings.

[Two Bills]

A more up to date chart.

94599

[jimjamuser]

I do not believe most Police complain of being Outgunned. What do you think the bad guys have that the Police don't have?

Capitalism is based on supply and demand. Gun manufacturers are a business like any other seeking a reasonable profit. Where are you getting the "greed" comment from?
I explained that in an earlier post. Here goes again...........Prior to about 1970 all gun magazines were DEVOTED to big and small game hunting , trophy hunting, and sporting bird hunting, and guns and equipment. In the farming areas of ALL states there was a thing called the soil bank, where farmers were paid to NOT farm and plow their marginal areas. These were designed to prevent the good topsoil from blowing away, which had historically been a part (or maybe the main reason) for the Great Depression. These areas of a farm set aside for the Soil Bank provided GREAT cover for deer and game birds. During the 60s it was not unusual to see as many as 30 pheasants crossing a country road in Kansas or Nebraska. The daily limit for pheasant was 4 and many people had large freezers filled up with game birds.
.....Those were the days of the SMALL farms. Today the Soil Bank is gone (I think that the oil companies still get a gov. payment). And so are the small farmers, replaced by FACTORY farms, which plow right up to the property line of a road and overkill the land with phosphate fertilizer. So, there are less game birds and deer due to less cover. So, hunting license sales dropped and gun magazine sales dropped and also gun sales.

The gun manufacturers had lower total profits and some were in danger of bankruptcy. Some bright fellow in the gun makers marketing department said, "Let's turn all the hunters into solder-of-fortune wanna be's, so that we can sell them military look alike weapons". Basically, the gun marketing departments CREATED - through propaganda, video games, and paintball copetetions - a WHOLE NEW class of young GUN OWNERS. And the gun makers got themselves an extra profit benefit because they could charge more for the fully accessorized G.I JOE paraphernalia-laden military style firearm.

[jimjamuser]

How exactly is that marketing done?

What is the profit margin on an AR or AK?

What is the profit margin on wooden stocked rifles?

If you are going to make such claims please back them up with facts and citations.
I would be glad to do that and also answer the prior post about what EXACTLY Mass murder costs US society - IF I worked for Forbes Magazine or the NY Times and I got paid at their rate AND had a staff to track down some statistics. But, since I am NOT employed as a professional writer. AND this is only a local forum, then I can only make statement of OPINION to the best of my meager ability.

[jimjamuser]

Yesterday, Jennifer Fernandez, 22 drove her car eastbound in the westbound lanes of I-90 and hit a van head-on containing a woman and five children. Everyone died at the scene.

Earlier this month 53 immigrants died in a semi-truck trailer in San Antonio.

The problem is these high capacity vehicles are killing a lot of people.

In 2021, 42, 915 people died in the US in vehicle crashes. Nobody needs a high capacity vehicle. You never hear of a motorcycle hitting another motorcycle head-on. You never hear of a motorcycle be responsible for mass killings. We can solve these mass killing events if everyone had a single occupant vehicle such as a motorcycle. Anyone below the age of 25 however should have a bicycle.
Satire, Sheldon ?

[Kenswing]

I would be glad to do that and also answer the prior post about what EXACTLY Mass murder costs US society - IF I worked for Forbes Magazine or the NY Times and I got paid at their rate AND had a staff to track down some statistics. But, since I am NOT employed as a professional writer. AND this is only a local forum, then I can only make statement of OPINION to the best of my meager ability.

In other words you just make stuff up. At least you admit it. But don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.

[Whitley]

Reinstate the assault weapons ban it was a reasonable law until Bush allowed it to sunset now it’s out of control!

It was a ban against rifles that looked scary.

[Whitley]

Where did the 77 percent come from? If you look at all the past shootings they all had guns that shot multiple bullets! Name a time where someone had a gun that shot one bullet at a time?

You do realize there are other weapons, other than Armorlite 15's that shoot one bullet per trigger pull. You do, don't you?

[Whitley]

And that is the problem right there. That YOU have decided that the problem is a failure of uniform definition of the term "mass murder."

Here's the solution to that problem: stop insisting that's the problem. That's not the problem. The definition of "mass murder" doesn't matter a darned bit.

What matters is that people who shouldn't have had firearms, had them, and used them to kill people who they didn't have the right to kill.

That's the "problem."


And your solution to making sure people who should not have firearms do not, is to take them away from people who should have them? Very interesting.

[jimjamuser]

In other words you just make stuff up. At least you admit it. But don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.
I am trying my best to be honest and sincere.

[Whitley]

yeah, everyone on the internet has “done their research” at the University of Google School of Law and are constitutional scholars and bill of rights subject matter experts. Maybe you are different, maybe you studied constitutional law under Professor Tribe or someone of his caliber but I doubt it. Maybe you wrote your PhD dissertation on the bill of rights, but I doubt it. Self appointed and self certified arm chair experts are everywhere on the internet.

I too am an NRA life member and certified firearm safety instructor as I have mentioned in other posts. The difference is that I don’t need to use pictures of myself with firearms for my profile picture. Responsible gun owners don’t need to prove they own or use firearms. Walk softly and carry a big stick unless you need a picture of you and a firearm to boost your ego.

Maybe you are not telling lies, but I doubt it.

[jimjamuser]

Gun deaths in Australia were already on the down trend before gun control. In America, most of our gun related deaths are due to inner city gang shootings.
That VERY chart confirms what I have been saying. The gun death rate in the US is about 3 times what Australia's is. And Australia's rate DROPPED SIGNIFICANTLY after they did their buybacks of semi-auto rifles and allowed bolt actions. That's the way I read that chart !

[Whitley]

How exactly is that marketing done?

What is the profit margin on an AR or AK?

What is the profit margin on wooden stocked rifles?

If you are going to make such claims please back them up with facts and citations.

It is not fair to ask a certain "type" of person to back up statements with facts. It is triggering. Next you will be asking for truth, which as we learned if we saw "What is a Woman", is a deeply transphobic, racist word; truth. While we are at it, why do you care so much about facts. That shows entitlement. Some (see the first sentence,) find facts to be terribly inconvenient to their point of view.

[Sarah_W]

I would be glad to do that and also answer the prior post about what EXACTLY Mass murder costs US society - IF I worked for Forbes Magazine or the NY Times and I got paid at their rate AND had a staff to track down some statistics. But, since I am NOT employed as a professional writer. AND this is only a local forum, then I can only make statement of OPINION to the best of my meager ability.

Honestly Jim, so far most of what I'm reading seems to be fantasy and conjecture based on no facts. Have you read the statistics and citations previously provided?

Let me recap and please correct me where I'm not correct.

We should ban all semi-automatic weapons. Why?
Because they hold large capacity magazines and shoot too fast. Why?
The NRA and greedy manufactures have caused young men fantasize and buy AR style rifles to commit mass murder. What proof do you have of that?
None.

Most mass murders are committed with a semi-automatic rifle. That's not true, most mass murders are committed with a pistol.
Most mass murderers really want to commit mass murders with semi-automatic AR styled rifles. What proof do you have of that?
None

We could stop mass murders if no more rifles were sold. There are already 6-20 million AR style rifles in circulation in America. How would banning new sales affect mass murders? I don't know..

But I know a lot of lives would be saved. How many lives would be saved if we ban sales of AR style rifles? I don't know. Lots

Mass murders cost society millions. Exactly how much? I don't know.

How does violating the rights of millions of law abiding citizens end mass murders and punish evil people? It wouldn't be a violation if the majority of people think we should ban all new sales of semi-automatic rifles. So, you would advocate for mob rule over Constitutional Rights? I don't know.

It's going to get a lot worse. What proof do you have of that? None.

****

Facts:
1. Gun rights people, gun control people, and the government all agree that mass murders are rarely committed with rifles of any kind and extremely rare with an AR style rifle.

2. Pistols are used in the majority of mass murders.

3. The majority of mass murders happen in the home, not public places and even more rare in schools.

4. Below is ten years of child homicide data. It is clear where children are dying.

2011, no mass shootings at schools
2012, 27 children killed is school mass shootings(including a univesity)
2013, no mass shootings at schools
2014, 5 children killed is school mass shootings
2015, 1,660 children died from domestic violence., 8 students from mass shooting at school
2016, 1730 children died from domestic violence, no mass shootings at schools
2017, 1710 children died from domestic violence, no mass shootings at schools
2018, 1780 children died from domestic violence, 22 students were killed
2019, 1840 children died from domestic violence, no mass shootings at schools
2020, 1,708 children died from domestic violence. no mass shootings at schools
2021, 4 students killed in mass shootings.
2022, 19 students killed in mass shootings.

We know who is being killed and we know who is doing the killing. Yet, the only focus is on the rarest of events with the rarest utilization of a particular firearm. Why is that?

Should mob rule override minority rights?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

And your solution to making sure people who should not have firearms do not, is to take them away from people who should have them? Very interesting.

No, they should be taken away from people who shouldn't have them, but have them anyway. AND they should not be sold legally to anyone who shouldn't have them, going forward. The way to determine who should/shouldn't have them can BEGIN with a universal background check and testing to ensure that the gun buyer is qualified to have it. Mandatory safety and use courses at a certified shooting range.

I'm not in favor of a gun ban. Very interesting that you have decided that I am though.

[tophcfa]

The way to determine who should/shouldn't have them can BEGIN with a universal background check and testing to ensure that the gun buyer is qualified to have it. Mandatory safety and use courses at a certified shooting range.


You described what is already in place. I had to go through all that to get my license to carry and legally purchase my firearms. In addition, I have to renew my license every five years and go through the certification process all over again each time. The problem typically isn’t people who follow the law, it’s the others.

[Topspinmo]

Given your profile picture we know where your bias is at. No thanks not interested in engaging with an obviously biased original poster with some sort of agenda.

Given you’re past post I’d say you are bias. Nothing going change any bodies mind when already made up.

[Topspinmo]

What is an assault weapon?


Winchester level action 44-40 made around 1875.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

You described what is already in place. I had to go through all that to get my license to carry and legally purchase my firearms. In addition, I have to renew my license every five years and go through the certification process all over again each time. The problem typically isn’t people who follow the law, it’s the others.

This isn't a national thing. Each state has its own rules and regulations regarding firearms. What you had to do, no one has to do in many other states. There are states that don't require licensing at all, and states that don't require any certification at all. There is no consistency from one state to the next. It's one of the top reasons (not the only top reason - just one of them) why Chicago is always such a mess. Yes they have strict gun laws. But those laws don't mean a damned thing when the states right next to the city's borders, Indiana and Wisconsin, don't have strict gun laws. It's a half hour over the border, buy a gun -legally- there, drive back to the neighborhood and pop a cap in your enemy's head. Easy peasy, and cheaper than buying black market goods in town.


There exists no universal background check nationwide. That is what millions of Americans are fighting to get. We don't want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. We just want some nationwide measure of accountability, to minimize the number of people who "shouldn't" have guns, having them anyway.

[Woodbear]

Australia and other counties NOT led around by the nose by the NRA solved that very problem by making certain classes of firearms illegal. If DOMESTIC terrorism continues to increase as it has in the last 2 years the American people's need for less bloodshed will override the greed of the NRA.

I am glad I live in the United States and not Australia. I am also happy to be a Lifetime Member of the NRA. You will never find a better group of people than NRA members. You will also find great men and women at the various Villages shooting clubs.

[Woodbear]

The rifle is by far the superior tool as compared to a pistol for a demented mass murderer that has a well-planned strategy for his killing spree. The key superiority of a RIFLE is the distance. A minimally trained killer could easily shoot into a crowd like at a July 4th parade from a DISTANCE of 50 to 200 yards away. I don't know the exact distance that the Las Vegas shooter was killing people at, but I would guess an average of 75 yards. An AR-15 RIFLE and the rifle cartridge that it fires are designed to hit a target at 100 to 200 yards with much more accuracy and terminal velocity than a PISTOL. The cartridge design for a RIFLE is bigger than a PISTOL cartridge - thus allowing MORE powder and therefore more VELOCITY at the muzzle and downrange. The very aerodynamic bullet design of most rifles allows the bullet to travel through 200 or more yards of air resistance with a flatter trajectory and less energy loss than a typical PISTOL bullet design

A pistol in contrast is designed for hitting targets under 50 yards by a shooter with limited training. The sight radius between the front sight of a PISTOL is much shorter than that of a RIFLE - Thus making the pistol inherently less accurate than a rifle. The pistol cartridge normally has less powder than a rifle cartridge. So, the muzzle velocity is less for the pistol. The pistol bullet is normally shorter, blunter, and less aerodynamically configured than a rifle bullet. This gives a PISTOL bullet a less flat trajectory and less velocity and energy at 100 yards than a RIFLE bullet

Overall a pistol is a short-range firearm compared to a rifle. That is why military snipers, obviously, use rifles and NOT pistols.

You will NEVER find a sniper using a semi-auto rifle. Maybe some could read up on barrel length and twist rate to understand the effects the barrel has on a projectile. Most of the comments are laughable

[Woodbear]

This isn't a national thing. Each state has its own rules and regulations regarding firearms. What you had to do, no one has to do in many other states. There are states that don't require licensing at all, and states that don't require any certification at all. There is no consistency from one state to the next. It's one of the top reasons (not the only top reason - just one of them) why Chicago is always such a mess. Yes they have strict gun laws. But those laws don't mean a damned thing when the states right next to the city's borders, Indiana and Wisconsin, don't have strict gun laws. It's a half hour over the border, buy a gun -legally- there, drive back to the neighborhood and pop a cap in your enemy's head. Easy peasy, and cheaper than buying black market goods in town.

There exists no universal background check nationwide. That is what millions of Americans are fighting to get. We don't want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. We just want some nationwide measure of accountability, to minimize the number of people who "shouldn't" have guns, having them anyway.


You could not be more wrong. It is 100% illegal to private sale a firearm and return to your state without doing a background check.

However, under the NFA and Federal Regulations, You are allowed to purchase a shotgun or long rifle as long as the sale will reflect on the policy of the state you reside in. For example: If you live in Florida and go to Washington to purchase a gun. The shop would have to hold the gun for 3 days. However, if you live in New York and went to another state to purchase an AR-15 you would get turned down because it is illegal in the state of New York.

So let’s clear some things up. An FFL or federal firearms license holder are the only individuals who can legally accept and sale across the states.

[Byte1]

That VERY chart confirms what I have been saying. The gun death rate in the US is about 3 times what Australia's is. And Australia's rate DROPPED SIGNIFICANTLY after they did their buybacks of semi-auto rifles and allowed bolt actions. That's the way I read that chart !

It's difficult to help someone understand facts when you even draw a picture and they still don't get it. I made a point that there was already a downward trend in Australia(that seems to be the superior country of choice) before the gun ban. We also have had a downward trend which seems to match that of Australia. No one said that murder does not exist. The point is that attributing a trend to a particular act when the trend was already in motion is not even scientific.
There are two different purposes being displayed here:
1. Ban guns using a very minute percentage of criminal acts as the reasoning.
2. Protect the children.
In this case, children being murdered is a tool or reason for radicals to ban guns. The purpose of the discussion is supposed to be suggestions on how to protect the children. Sorry, but that is like saying, "I want to get rid of liquor so I am going to blame all accidents on DUI's." Get rid of the liquor and you still have vehicle accidents.
Do not presume to compare Australia with the U.S. when it comes to murders. That is a totally different country, with a different culture(s) and different government and different laws. The demographics are different and the population density is different.
If you don't like guns and need a reason to ban them from EVERYONE because of your fear, then please be honest about it. The only thing that will change in mass murders if you get rid of semi-automatic firearms is that anyone intent on killing will use a different tool.
What is more effective, hardening physical security at the schools or banning one instrument of mass murder?

[biker1]

Not exactly. The M107 and M82 are examples of semi-automatic sniper rifles.

You will NEVER find a sniper using a semi-auto rifle. Maybe some could read up on barrel length and twist rate to understand the effects the barrel has on a projectile. Most of the comments are laughable

[Byte1]

This isn't a national thing. Each state has its own rules and regulations regarding firearms. What you had to do, no one has to do in many other states. There are states that don't require licensing at all, and states that don't require any certification at all. There is no consistency from one state to the next. It's one of the top reasons (not the only top reason - just one of them) why Chicago is always such a mess. Yes they have strict gun laws. But those laws don't mean a damned thing when the states right next to the city's borders, Indiana and Wisconsin, don't have strict gun laws. It's a half hour over the border, buy a gun -legally- there, drive back to the neighborhood and pop a cap in your enemy's head. Easy peasy, and cheaper than buying black market goods in town.


There exists no universal background check nationwide. That is what millions of Americans are fighting to get. We don't want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. We just want some nationwide measure of accountability, to minimize the number of people who "shouldn't" have guns, having them anyway.

Wrong! There IS a background check on any firearm sold by a legal firearms dealer. And anyone that thinks you can stop a crazy from owning a firearm is sadly mistaken. Crazy is not determined by law enforcement. To do a proper background check it costs thousands of dollars, so that is not even practical. All they can do is a record check. Although, many states interview neighbors and associates when they do a check for CCW.

[Sarah_W]

This isn't a national thing. Each state has its own rules and regulations regarding firearms. What you had to do, no one has to do in many other states. There are states that don't require licensing at all, and states that don't require any certification at all. There is no consistency from one state to the next. It's one of the top reasons (not the only top reason - just one of them) why Chicago is always such a mess. Yes they have strict gun laws. But those laws don't mean a damned thing when the states right next to the city's borders, Indiana and Wisconsin, don't have strict gun laws. It's a half hour over the border, buy a gun -legally- there, drive back to the neighborhood and pop a cap in your enemy's head. Easy peasy, and cheaper than buying black market goods in town.


There exists no universal background check nationwide. That is what millions of Americans are fighting to get. We don't want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. We just want some nationwide measure of accountability, to minimize the number of people who "shouldn't" have guns, having them anyway.

I would think any criminal can buy a gun "on the street" in any state. They don't have to cross a border to do so.

https://www.uslawshield.com/firearm-background-checks-what-does-atf-form-4473-mean-to-me/


Every gun dealer in the United States has to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Every gun sold, new or used, at an FFL, must have an ATF Form 4473 completed and submitted to the FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Therefore, everyone who buys a gun from a gun store or gun dealer has gone through a background check. That holds true whether you are at their store or at their booth at a gun show.

Private gun sales is a different issue. Some states, such as California, require private part transfers to go through an FFL and the same Form 4473 is submitted and a background check is performed. Some states do not require a private individual to do anything at all. Florida law states that you must be a resident of Florida with a state issued ID to buy a new or used gun. Therefore, if you have a Florida drivers license I can sell you my used firearm.

Form 4473

It is a federal crime to lie on Form 4473. The odds of being prosecuted for lying on Form 4473 is extremely low. In 2019, Hunter Biden lied on Form 4473 and was not prosecuted. That is not surprising. In 2019, NICS denied 112,000 prohibited people to by a gun, Federal Prosecutors received 478 referrals for prosecution and only prosecuted 298 cases. That is a prosecution rate of 1 in 375 prohibited people.

Perhaps we should enforce the laws we already have on the books to keep guns out of the hands of prohibited people before we push for new laws. Perhaps we should study the impact of the laws that already exist. Perhaps we evaluate the penalties of crimes committed with firearms and make it severe. That has worked in the past. Perhaps if someone murders another with a firearm instead of spending over $1 Million to execute that person, they face a firing squad. That has worked in the past and we save tax payers $1 Million per murderer.

[jimjamuser]

In other words you just make stuff up. At least you admit it. But don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.
I wouldn't expect that, even my wife does NOT take me seriously.

[jimjamuser]

Honestly Jim, so far most of what I'm reading seems to be fantasy and conjecture based on no facts. Have you read the statistics and citations previously provided?

Let me recap and please correct me where I'm not correct.

We should ban all semi-automatic weapons. Why?
Because they hold large capacity magazines and shoot too fast. Why?
The NRA and greedy manufactures have caused young men fantasize and buy AR style rifles to commit mass murder. What proof do you have of that?
None.

Most mass murders are committed with a semi-automatic rifle. That's not true, most mass murders are committed with a pistol.
Most mass murderers really want to commit mass murders with semi-automatic AR styled rifles. What proof do you have of that?
None

We could stop mass murders if no more rifles were sold. There are already 6-20 million AR style rifles in circulation in America. How would banning new sales affect mass murders? I don't know..

But I know a lot of lives would be saved. How many lives would be saved if we ban sales of AR style rifles? I don't know. Lots

Mass murders cost society millions. Exactly how much? I don't know.

How does violating the rights of millions of law abiding citizens end mass murders and punish evil people? It wouldn't be a violation if the majority of people think we should ban all new sales of semi-automatic rifles. So, you would advocate for mob rule over Constitutional Rights? I don't know.

It's going to get a lot worse. What proof do you have of that? None.

****

Facts:
1. Gun rights people, gun control people, and the government all agree that mass murders are rarely committed with rifles of any kind and extremely rare with an AR style rifle.

2. Pistols are used in the majority of mass murders.

3. The majority of mass murders happen in the home, not public places and even more rare in schools.

4. Below is ten years of child homicide data. It is clear where children are dying.

2011, no mass shootings at schools
2012, 27 children killed is school mass shootings(including a univesity)
2013, no mass shootings at schools
2014, 5 children killed is school mass shootings
2015, 1,660 children died from domestic violence., 8 students from mass shooting at school
2016, 1730 children died from domestic violence, no mass shootings at schools
2017, 1710 children died from domestic violence, no mass shootings at schools
2018, 1780 children died from domestic violence, 22 students were killed
2019, 1840 children died from domestic violence, no mass shootings at schools
2020, 1,708 children died from domestic violence. no mass shootings at schools
2021, 4 students killed in mass shootings.
2022, 19 students killed in mass shootings.

We know who is being killed and we know who is doing the killing. Yet, the only focus is on the rarest of events with the rarest utilization of a particular firearm. Why is that?

Should mob rule override minority rights?
I will answer......the part about young MEN fantasizing about AR-15-style rifles. There are statistics that say that only about 5 % of mass murders are women. Now, as to whether they are young men or old men? Lately, they have been mostly YOUNG men. And we all know that the testosterone levels of YOUNG men on average are greater than OLD MEN. So, I am going for a wild-butt and educational guess that statistically there are more young men. For example, the original DOMESTIC TERRORIST was the Oklahoma City bomber and he was basically a YOUNG DUDE. And AGAIN I would rather state an intelligent, intuitive OPINION than become a professional writer with a PAID staff.

Next....about pistols vs rifles......I have PREVIOUSLY beaten that subject into the turf. I have proven my point beyond a shadow of a doubt.......so I REST on that case......your Honor.

Now, about how many lives would be saved, and what do mass murders cost society? Let me be really, really real, NO ONE that is human can answer those questions. In a few years, when I go to meet God, I will try and remember to ask him.

[jimjamuser]

I am glad I live in the United States and not Australia. I am also happy to be a Lifetime Member of the NRA. You will never find a better group of people than NRA members. You will also find great men and women at the various Villages shooting clubs.
I was an NRA member up until about 1970 when their articles and emphasis shifted from hunting and sporting to most articles about military firearms.

[Hiltongrizz11]

Reinstate the assault weapons ban it was a reasonable law until Bush allowed it to sunset now it’s out of control!

If you followed up and understood you'd find out that shooting is actually went up during the assault weapons ban!

Shootings have actually gone down over the last 20 years and the amount that I've taken place with rifles is even smaller

[jimjamuser]

You will NEVER find a sniper using a semi-auto rifle. Maybe some could read up on barrel length and twist rate to understand the effects the barrel has on a projectile. Most of the comments are laughable
The domestic terrorist near Chicago that wore women's clothes while shooting down on the July 4 parade......he was a SNIPER using a semi-automatic AR-15-style rifle. Any rifle action can be used by a SNIPER. The best SNIPER of WW2 was a Russian woman using a bolt-action. A SNIPER could use a single-shot rifle IF he had enough DISTANCE between himself and the target and it was a long-range rifle. There are 2,000-yard single-shot rifles.

[jimjamuser]

It's difficult to help someone understand facts when you even draw a picture and they still don't get it. I made a point that there was already a downward trend in Australia(that seems to be the superior country of choice) before the gun ban. We also have had a downward trend which seems to match that of Australia. No one said that murder does not exist. The point is that attributing a trend to a particular act when the trend was already in motion is not even scientific.
There are two different purposes being displayed here:
1. Ban guns using a very minute percentage of criminal acts as the reasoning.
2. Protect the children.
In this case, children being murdered is a tool or reason for radicals to ban guns. The purpose of the discussion is supposed to be suggestions on how to protect the children. Sorry, but that is like saying, "I want to get rid of liquor so I am going to blame all accidents on DUI's." Get rid of the liquor and you still have vehicle accidents.
Do not presume to compare Australia with the U.S. when it comes to murders. That is a totally different country, with a different culture(s) and different government and different laws. The demographics are different and the population density is different.
If you don't like guns and need a reason to ban them from EVERYONE because of your fear, then please be honest about it. The only thing that will change in mass murders if you get rid of semi-automatic firearms is that anyone intent on killing will use a different tool.
What is more effective, hardening physical security at the schools or banning one instrument of mass murder?
True, they might then be forced to use a different tool like a bolt-action, which is slower and would or could give Police more TIME to arrive on the scene. And give children and adults more TIME to run and hide. Magazine limits of 6 or fewer rounds would also give more time to run or throw rocks or whatever. That is what New Zealand and ALL other 1st world countries PROVED...........except the US.

[jimjamuser]

It's difficult to help someone understand facts when you even draw a picture and they still don't get it. I made a point that there was already a downward trend in Australia(that seems to be the superior country of choice) before the gun ban. We also have had a downward trend which seems to match that of Australia. No one said that murder does not exist. The point is that attributing a trend to a particular act when the trend was already in motion is not even scientific.
There are two different purposes being displayed here:
1. Ban guns using a very minute percentage of criminal acts as the reasoning.
2. Protect the children.
In this case, children being murdered is a tool or reason for radicals to ban guns. The purpose of the discussion is supposed to be suggestions on how to protect the children. Sorry, but that is like saying, "I want to get rid of liquor so I am going to blame all accidents on DUI's." Get rid of the liquor and you still have vehicle accidents.
Do not presume to compare Australia with the U.S. when it comes to murders. That is a totally different country, with a different culture(s) and different government and different laws. The demographics are different and the population density is different.
If you don't like guns and need a reason to ban them from EVERYONE because of your fear, then please be honest about it. The only thing that will change in mass murders if you get rid of semi-automatic firearms is that anyone intent on killing will use a different tool.
What is more effective, hardening physical security at the schools or banning one instrument of mass murder?
Banning one instrument of Domestic Terror .........the semi-auto rifle .........Australia proved that !

[jimjamuser]

Not exactly. The M107 and M82 are examples of semi-automatic sniper rifles.
Yes, I knew that.

[Sarah_W]

I will answer......the part about young MEN fantasizing about AR-15-style rifles. There are statistics that say that only about 5 % of mass murders are women. Now, as to whether they are young men or old men? Lately, they have been mostly YOUNG men. And we all know that the testosterone levels of YOUNG men on average are greater than OLD MEN. So, I am going for a wild-butt and educational guess that statistically there are more young men. For example, the original DOMESTIC TERRORIST was the Oklahoma City bomber and he was basically a YOUNG DUDE. And AGAIN I would rather state an intelligent, intuitive OPINION than become a professional writer with a PAID staff.

Next....about pistols vs rifles......I have PREVIOUSLY beaten that subject into the turf. I have proven my point beyond a shadow of a doubt.......so I REST on that case......your Honor.

Now, about how many lives would be saved, and what do mass murders cost society? Let me be really, really real, NO ONE that is human can answer those questions. In a few years, when I go to meet God, I will try and remember to ask him.

I don't think so. Myself and many others have proven, with links to government sources, gun control activist sources and gun rights sources the simple fact that 77% of mass murders are done with pistols NOT rifles and certainly not AR's.

[Sarah_W]

The domestic terrorist near Chicago that wore women's clothes while shooting down on the July 4 parade......he was a SNIPER using a semi-automatic AR-15-style rifle. Any rifle action can be used by a SNIPER. The best SNIPER of WW2 was a Russian woman using a bolt-action. A SNIPER could use a single-shot rifle IF he had enough DISTANCE between himself and the target and it was a long-range rifle. There are 2,000-yard single-shot rifles.

The Highland Park shooter, Robert Crimo, III was NOT a sniper by the very definition of the word. Snipers shoot from long distances, not 50 feet. He was on top of a 3 story building. Not sniper material. More of an insult to actual snipers, really.

These days 2,000 yard shots are not very difficult. Recently Paul Phillips (from my home town) completed a 6,012 yard impact (3.4 miles) with a custom .416 Barrett round. To give some appreciation to that accomplishment consider, after 21 cold bore shots and some adjustments and a flight time of 17 seconds he impacted a 32"x48" steel plate. He didn't get confirmation of the impact until after he had launched his second shot.

[Woodbear]

The Highland Park shooter, Robert Crimo, III was NOT a sniper by the very definition of the word. Snipers shoot from long distances, not 50 feet. He was on top of a 3 story building. Not sniper material. More of an insult to actual snipers, really.

These days 2,000 yard shots are not very difficult. Recently Paul Phillips (from my home town) completed a 6,012 yard impact (3.4 miles) with a custom .416 Barrett round. To give some appreciation to that accomplishment consider, after 21 cold bore shots and some adjustments and a flight time of 17 seconds he impacted a 32"x48" steel plate. He didn't get confirmation of the impact until after he had launched his second shot.


That is amazing. The physical control and calculations that one needs to make to hit such a target is incredible!

[jimbomaybe]

Every thread in this forum is started by someone with an obvious bias. lol

My thoughts are (refined) opinion, you thoughts demonstrate bias, the subtle use of language tells much of were we come from , it is also used to manipulate terms of any discussion as to the facts, I think that's why the poster wants to clarify the terms and definitions

[Sarah_W]

True, they might then be forced to use a different tool like a bolt-action, which is slower and would or could give Police more TIME to arrive on the scene. And give children and adults more TIME to run and hide. Magazine limits of 6 or fewer rounds would also give more time to run or throw rocks or whatever. That is what New Zealand and ALL other 1st world countries PROVED...........except the US.

I have to wonder why you're against protecting children. The only solution I keep reading is to slow down the killer. Given the average response time for Law Enforcement is 12 minutes how many casualties are acceptable?

It is much more cost effective to harden the schools. That doesn't mean barbed wire and Dobermans. That means taking measures like a few schools have done. There is a fantastic plan implemented by a school in Indiana that stops a killer from accessing children. Florida has implemented the Guardian program in 60% of the schools so far. And of course, as we saw at Greenwood Mall recently, a good Samaritan citizen, armed and trained, stopped the killer in 15 seconds.

What is really the agenda then? Stop killers in their tracks and protect innocent people or disarm law abiding citizens. Those are the two choices.

[Sarah_W]

Banning one instrument of Domestic Terror .........the semi-auto rifle .........Australia proved that !

Jim, why do you think Australia has accomplished what you say? Have you done the research and what do you know of mass murders in Australia.

As we know the turning point was the Port Arthur massacre which was the catalyst for Australia's weapons ban and forced confiscation. That was 25 years ago. Since that time, there have been 37 mass murder events resulting in 160 deaths. The weapons used were axes, knives, shotguns, vehicles and blunt objects. Perhaps the families of the 160 victims can take solace that they didn't die by a rifle.

But, what about the 25 years before Port Arthur? Prior to the weapons ban there were 128 people killed in 21 mass murder events. Of the 21 events, two involved a semi automatic rifle. The rest were shotguns, knives, vehicles, etc.

The facts show that Australia has had more mass murder events and more people killed after their weapons ban than they had before the weapons ban.

What exactly did they accomplish?

[jimjamuser]

The Highland Park shooter, Robert Crimo, III was NOT a sniper by the very definition of the word. Snipers shoot from long distances, not 50 feet. He was on top of a 3 story building. Not sniper material. More of an insult to actual snipers, really.

These days 2,000 yard shots are not very difficult. Recently Paul Phillips (from my home town) completed a 6,012 yard impact (3.4 miles) with a custom .416 Barrett round. To give some appreciation to that accomplishment consider, after 21 cold bore shots and some adjustments and a flight time of 17 seconds he impacted a 32"x48" steel plate. He didn't get confirmation of the impact until after he had launched his second shot.
A 3.4-mile shot with accuracy IS impressive! And the details stated were interesting also.

[Number 10 GI]

Another more drastic measure (for the USA, not so much for other places): instead of maintaining "registration" for all males age 18...

How about mandatory military training and service for all able-bodied/minded men and women between 18 and 20. It should be a civic duty to the country to serve. Plus they get their weapons training, real actual military training rather than this proud boys pretend garbage that gets peddled.

That way this younger generation can grow up to be adults who carry firearms, know how to use them, how NOT to use them, when to use them, when NOT to use them. And they've proven themselves mentally and physically capable of handling it.

I agree whole heartedly on mandatory military service, bring back the draft. At 18 years a person enters military service for 2 years, no exceptions for anything other than a physical condition. During my 21 years in the Army I saw many young kids, who were problem children for their parents, be made to face consequences for their actions and grow up. You either learned to control your anger and emotions or you faced repercussions.

A couple examples.

A neighbor kid was loud, obnoxious, a bully and a hot head. I met up with him one day a couple of years after he got of the Marines, and he was a changed person. Polite, mature and a hard working guy.

A guy in my unit in Germany stole a military truck to go to the local bar one night. He was given 30 days in the stockade located in Mannhiem, Germany. At that time a stockade was not a nice place, it was very rigid and infractions were dealt with harshly. When he was being taken to the stockade he was bragging that he would own the place. 30 days later when he returned to the unit he told me he would rather die than go back. He stayed on the straight and narrow until he got of the Army, and I believe he stayed that way in civilian life.

The best thing about the military was it put all races, ethnicities, city kids, rural kids, rich and poor into the same environment. You learned, firsthand, how to work with people that you didn't interact with where you were raised.

Everyone should perform some kind of civil service for two years. If a person didn't want to go into the military they would be placed in something like the Depression era CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps). You should be expected to give back something to your country, it gives you a sense of ownership in the wellbeing of the country.

[jimjamuser]

I have to wonder why you're against protecting children. The only solution I keep reading is to slow down the killer. Given the average response time for Law Enforcement is 12 minutes how many casualties are acceptable?

It is much more cost effective to harden the schools. That doesn't mean barbed wire and Dobermans. That means taking measures like a few schools have done. There is a fantastic plan implemented by a school in Indiana that stops a killer from accessing children. Florida has implemented the Guardian program in 60% of the schools so far. And of course, as we saw at Greenwood Mall recently, a good Samaritan citizen, armed and trained, stopped the killer in 15 seconds.

What is really the agenda then? Stop killers in their tracks and protect innocent people or disarm law abiding citizens. Those are the two choices.
I said in 2 previous posts that I liked the IDEA of hardening schools. I also said previously that I did NOT believe that a SIGNIFICANT number of schools will EVER be hardened in any SIGNIFICANT way. That is because most communities and states will NOT do it because it will raise TAXES. And people in the upper tax brackets that have significant property do not ALLOW property taxes or other taxes to go up. Try getting a tax increase here in TV Land !

Just do this thought experiment.........suppose someone is crazy and determined to be a mass murderer. And they just read a newspaper article that stated that EVERY LAST school in the US was hardened like the one in Indiana. Or even that the school in his community was hardened. So, imagine what he might think and come up with in his demented brain.............gee wizz, he thinks I should forget schools and plan for killing in a church or concert or ANY place where there is a bunch of people.......hhhyyyymmm maybe the football games or baseball.......they are NOT hardened.

Think about it - no matter what event the demented shooter chooses the ONE thing that is constant is that he will take the fastest shooting, LONG RANGE, big magazine, firearm that he can procure. It might have a flash suppressor of even a silencer or even a Bump-stop attachment. But, if he is planning it out well (in a demented way)......the firearm he takes will NOT be a pistol, except maybe as a backup!

I hate to say this, but I think that this has been laid out with about the highest logical quality that would make even Dr. Spock (of Star Trek fame) happy .....as a moonbeam from heaven!

[jimjamuser]

I have to wonder why you're against protecting children. The only solution I keep reading is to slow down the killer. Given the average response time for Law Enforcement is 12 minutes how many casualties are acceptable?

It is much more cost effective to harden the schools. That doesn't mean barbed wire and Dobermans. That means taking measures like a few schools have done. There is a fantastic plan implemented by a school in Indiana that stops a killer from accessing children. Florida has implemented the Guardian program in 60% of the schools so far. And of course, as we saw at Greenwood Mall recently, a good Samaritan citizen, armed and trained, stopped the killer in 15 seconds.

What is really the agenda then? Stop killers in their tracks and protect innocent people or disarm law abiding citizens. Those are the two choices.
Also that Greenwood Mall incident further proves my point. he was unsuccessful because he did NOT use a RIFLE and put lots of DISTANCE between himself and his targets. And he did NOT use elevation and cover. Basically, he was NOT a SNIPER and planned badly. He was out of control and probably wanted to die himself.

[jimjamuser]

Jim, why do you think Australia has accomplished what you say? Have you done the research and what do you know of mass murders in Australia.

As we know the turning point was the Port Arthur massacre which was the catalyst for Australia's weapons ban and forced confiscation. That was 25 years ago. Since that time, there have been 37 mass murder events resulting in 160 deaths. The weapons used were axes, knives, shotguns, vehicles and blunt objects. Perhaps the families of the 160 victims can take solace that they didn't die by a rifle.

But, what about the 25 years before Port Arthur? Prior to the weapons ban there were 128 people killed in 21 mass murder events. Of the 21 events, two involved a semi automatic rifle. The rest were shotguns, knives, vehicles, etc.

The facts show that Australia has had more mass murder events and more people killed after their weapons ban than they had before the weapons ban.

What exactly did they accomplish?
What they and all other 1st world countries did (except for the US) was to force the mass murderers to use S-L-O-W-E-R and less efficient means of killing people - like baseball bats, etc. That gives Police or people close by opportunities to intervene in the DOMESTIC TERROR-PRODUCING event - the mass murder.

Whatever the statistics for murders or mass murders are AFTER the Port Arthur - they are LESS than they would be had Australia NOT attacked the PROBLEM and realized that the SOLUTION was to eliminate the fast-shooting semi-auto rifles. They did NOT decide to HARDEN all their schools because that IS the WRONG solution. And that adds further PRROF to what I have been saying. And their MAIN success is that their children do NOT have the TERROR that US children have when they start school soon. Australia and ALL the other 1st world counties, other than the US prove that organizations like the NRA can be BEATEN because people can see that such GREED is unpatriotic and gets their citizens (children and adults) KILLED! Wake up America or the TERRORISM will continue and get worse!

[jimjamuser]

I agree whole heartedly on mandatory military service, bring back the draft. At 18 years a person enters military service for 2 years, no exceptions for anything other than a physical condition. During my 21 years in the Army I saw many young kids, who were problem children for their parents, be made to face consequences for their actions and grow up. You either learned to control your anger and emotions or you faced repercussions.

A couple examples.

A neighbor kid was loud, obnoxious, a bully and a hot head. I met up with him one day a couple of years after he got of the Marines, and he was a changed person. Polite, mature and a hard working guy.

A guy in my unit in Germany stole a military truck to go to the local bar one night. He was given 30 days in the stockade located in Mannhiem, Germany. At that time a stockade was not a nice place, it was very rigid and infractions were dealt with harshly. When he was being taken to the stockade he was bragging that he would own the place. 30 days later when he returned to the unit he told me he would rather die than go back. He stayed on the straight and narrow until he got of the Army, and I believe he stayed that way in civilian life.

The best thing about the military was it put all races, ethnicities, city kids, rural kids, rich and poor into the same environment. You learned, firsthand, how to work with people that you didn't interact with where you were raised.

Everyone should perform some kind of civil service for two years. If a person didn't want to go into the military they would be placed in something like the Depression era CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps). You should be expected to give back something to your country, it gives you a sense of ownership in the wellbeing of the country.
I agree with that 100%. And in addition to all the improvements to society that were mentioned. I would like to add that a draft would place in the services young men who would be LESS likely to ever try to overthrow their government - something that I worry about with the current ALL-VOLUNTEER military. I believe that an over-throw is VERY unlikely, but the probability is NOT ZERO !

[Sarah_W]

I said in 2 previous posts that I liked the IDEA of hardening schools. I also said previously that I did NOT believe that a SIGNIFICANT number of schools will EVER be hardened in any SIGNIFICANT way. That is because most communities and states will NOT do it because it will raise TAXES. And people in the upper tax brackets that have significant property do not ALLOW property taxes or other taxes to go up. Try getting a tax increase here in TV Land !

Just do this thought experiment.........suppose someone is crazy and determined to be a mass murderer. And they just read a newspaper article that stated that EVERY LAST school in the US was hardened like the one in Indiana. Or even that the school in his community was hardened. So, imagine what he might think and come up with in his demented brain.............gee wizz, he thinks I should forget schools and plan for killing in a church or concert or ANY place where there is a bunch of people.......hhhyyyymmm maybe the football games or baseball.......they are NOT hardened.

Think about it - no matter what event the demented shooter chooses the ONE thing that is constant is that he will take the fastest shooting, LONG RANGE, big magazine, firearm that he can procure. It might have a flash suppressor of even a silencer or even a Bump-stop attachment. But, if he is planning it out well (in a demented way)......the firearm he takes will NOT be a pistol, except maybe as a backup!

I hate to say this, but I think that this has been laid out with about the highest logical quality that would make even Dr. Spock (of Star Trek fame) happy .....as a moonbeam from heaven!

That is not correct. Please remember the vast majority of mass murder events happen with a handgun, not a rifle. I'll keep stressing this fact until you quit erroneously saying they choose a rifle.

The rest of your scenario confirms what we already know. Killers hunt in gun free zones. Remove gun free zones, promote an armed and trained populous and mass murder events will cease.

[Sarah_W]

Also that Greenwood Mall incident further proves my point. he was unsuccessful because he did NOT use a RIFLE and put lots of DISTANCE between himself and his targets. And he did NOT use elevation and cover. Basically, he was NOT a SNIPER and planned badly. He was out of control and probably wanted to die himself.

That is not correct. The Greenwood Mall shooter used a Daniel Defense AR rifle. The man who stopped him within 15 seconds of his killing spree did so with a handgun. Other than the Las Vegas shooting, the rest of the mass murder events have been up close, not the great distance as you imagine.

[Sarah_W]

What they and all other 1st world countries did (except for the US) was to force the mass murderers to use S-L-O-W-E-R and less efficient means of killing people - like baseball bats, etc. That gives Police or people close by opportunities to intervene in the DOMESTIC TERROR-PRODUCING event - the mass murder.

Whatever the statistics for murders or mass murders are AFTER the Port Arthur - they are LESS than they would be had Australia NOT attacked the PROBLEM and realized that the SOLUTION was to eliminate the fast-shooting semi-auto rifles. They did NOT decide to HARDEN all their schools because that IS the WRONG solution. And that adds further PRROF to what I have been saying. And their MAIN success is that their children do NOT have the TERROR that US children have when they start school soon. Australia and ALL the other 1st world counties, other than the US prove that organizations like the NRA can be BEATEN because people can see that such GREED is unpatriotic and gets their citizens (children and adults) KILLED! Wake up America or the TERRORISM will continue and get worse!

So, facts don't matter. Nearly twice as many mass murder events have happened after Port Arthur that happened before Port Arthur and that is a "win"? After Port Arthur there have been 25% more people killed than before Port Arthur and that is a "win"?

Why is it that if they were slowed down in their killing spree that there have been more events and more people killed? I can't connect those dots.

I think you previously mentioned you were a member of the NRA in the past. If that is true, then you must realize that the NRA is comprised of it's membership, approximately 5 million Americans. When you attach labels to the NRA you are attaching them to your fellow citizens. I would posit they are more patriotic than those who deny them their Rights as acknowledged by the Constitution.

Critical thinking seems to be gone. People are being spoon fed by social media, the main stream media and are too lazy to do their own research. Trust but verify are very wise words.

[jimjamuser]

That is not correct. Please remember the vast majority of mass murder events happen with a handgun, not a rifle. I'll keep stressing this fact until you quit erroneously saying they choose a rifle.

The rest of your scenario confirms what we already know. Killers hunt in gun free zones. Remove gun free zones, promote an armed and trained populous and mass murder events will cease.
Numerically more mass murder EVENTS of maybe up to 6 people are caused by pistols, that IS correct. But, it is the PLANNED attacks (by RIRLE) causing 20 to 60 people to be killed by the most diabolical killers that become DOMESTIC TERRORISM. And thus get the maximum media coverage (NOT just local news) that sends shock waves throughout all of society and maximizes the emotions of TERROR.

Churches and school classrooms and ALL large sports or music events are the targets of these predators seeking headlines. They are looking for more recognition than MERELY 5 killed in a driveby with pistols. On the many parts of the dark web, it is the military AR-15-style RIFLE that is worshipped and put up on its diabolical pedestal - these people don't want to kill ONLY 5 people - they need dozens of victims to satisfy their dark egos. The mundane pistol is not weapon ENOUGH for their insane ambitions. Plus, it puts them too close to their victims - they want DISTANCE for more efficiency and cover and the illusion that they MIGHT get away with it.

[jimjamuser]

That is not correct. The Greenwood Mall shooter used a Daniel Defense AR rifle. The man who stopped him within 15 seconds of his killing spree did so with a handgun. Other than the Las Vegas shooting, the rest of the mass murder events have been up close, not the great distance as you imagine.
OK, I was wrong about how he armed himself, but I believe that I was still correct that he had a bad plan because he was not elevated and in a protected area like a SNIPER would desire. If he was just running around on the same level floor as his victims and shooting at SHORT range then he might have been better off (from his perspective) with 2 or more handguns.

[jimjamuser]

That is not correct. Please remember the vast majority of mass murder events happen with a handgun, not a rifle. I'll keep stressing this fact until you quit erroneously saying they choose a rifle.

The rest of your scenario confirms what we already know. Killers hunt in gun free zones. Remove gun free zones, promote an armed and trained populous and mass murder events will cease.
It is not practical to believe that a handgun can be placed on the hip of every US citizen in ALL situations. They would start shooting each other at the 1st sound of a golf car backfiring. Australia and ALL other 1st world countries do NOT have large gun violence problems. It is the US that does. The US is more than 4 times greater than the next worse country. And even Canada is way better than America. The US has 1.2 guns per PERSON. More guns equate to more killing, not less. Any other conclusion is based on propaganda put out by companies that sell guns. I try to avoid propaganda.

[jimjamuser]

So, facts don't matter. Nearly twice as many mass murder events have happened after Port Arthur that happened before Port Arthur and that is a "win"? After Port Arthur there have been 25% more people killed than before Port Arthur and that is a "win"?

Why is it that if they were slowed down in their killing spree that there have been more events and more people killed? I can't connect those dots.

I think you previously mentioned you were a member of the NRA in the past. If that is true, then you must realize that the NRA is comprised of it's membership, approximately 5 million Americans. When you attach labels to the NRA you are attaching them to your fellow citizens. I would posit they are more patriotic than those who deny them their Rights as acknowledged by the Constitution.

Critical thinking seems to be gone. People are being spoon fed by social media, the main stream media and are too lazy to do their own research. Trust but verify are very wise words.
I wish that my fellow Americans would seriously question the propaganda that is being put out about guns by those that have a vested interest in them being unaware that the US is the dubious outlier in the list, by country, for gun violence. Mass murders and gun violence are increasing at a RATE where public outcry, even in TV Land will DEMAND a solution, sooner rather than later.

[Byte1]

The domestic terrorist near Chicago that wore women's clothes while shooting down on the July 4 parade......he was a SNIPER using a semi-automatic AR-15-style rifle. Any rifle action can be used by a SNIPER. The best SNIPER of WW2 was a Russian woman using a bolt-action. A SNIPER could use a single-shot rifle IF he had enough DISTANCE between himself and the target and it was a long-range rifle. There are 2,000-yard single-shot rifles.

I think I saw that movie, but I don't think she was the "best sniper."

"The most deadly sniper of World War II: Simo Häyhä. He had 542 confirmed kills, with an unconfirmed total number of 705. Not only is he the most deadly sniper of World War II, but he is also believed to be the most deadly sniper of all time. All his kills were against the Red Army, who nicknamed him White Death."

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Wrong! There IS a background check on any firearm sold by a legal firearms dealer. And anyone that thinks you can stop a crazy from owning a firearm is sadly mistaken. Crazy is not determined by law enforcement. To do a proper background check it costs thousands of dollars, so that is not even practical. All they can do is a record check. Although, many states interview neighbors and associates when they do a check for CCW.

Universal background checks are not universal, because they only apply to sales at authorized dealerships, not at gun shows. The "gun show loophole" is an actual thing.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I agree with that 100%. And in addition to all the improvements to society that were mentioned. I would like to add that a draft would place in the services young men who would be LESS likely to ever try to overthrow their government - something that I worry about with the current ALL-VOLUNTEER military. I believe that an over-throw is VERY unlikely, but the probability is NOT ZERO !

Men AND women. There is no reason why women should be exempt from military service, from basic training, learning how to fight, learning about their weapons from assembling and field stripping, to shooting and everything in between.

Just like they do in Israel and several other countries around the globe.

Women in the Israel Defense Forces - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Israel_Defense_Forces)

[Sarah_W]

Numerically more mass murder EVENTS of maybe up to 6 people are caused by pistols, that IS correct. But, it is the PLANNED attacks (by RIRLE) causing 20 to 60 people to be killed by the most diabolical killers that become DOMESTIC TERRORISM. And thus get the maximum media coverage (NOT just local news) that sends shock waves throughout all of society and maximizes the emotions of TERROR.

Churches and school classrooms and ALL large sports or music events are the targets of these predators seeking headlines. They are looking for more recognition than MERELY 5 killed in a driveby with pistols. On the many parts of the dark web, it is the military AR-15-style RIFLE that is worshipped and put up on its diabolical pedestal - these people don't want to kill ONLY 5 people - they need dozens of victims to satisfy their dark egos. The mundane pistol is not weapon ENOUGH for their insane ambitions. Plus, it puts them too close to their victims - they want DISTANCE for more efficiency and cover and the illusion that they MIGHT get away with it.

Suggestion. Don't create a Master Class on Snipers or Mass Shooters. :icon_wink:

The Mundane Pistol

In 2007 the Virginia Tech shooting resulted in 32 killed and 23 injured. The shooter used a pistol.

In 1991 the Luby's shooting in Killeen, Texas resulted in 23 killed and 27 injured. The shooter used a pistol.

2009 Fort Hood shooting resulted in 14 killed and 32 injured. The shooter used two pistols, a semiautomatic and a revolver.

1986 Edmund Post Office shooting resulted in 14 killed and 6 injured. The shooter used a pistol.

I could go on and on. It's public information.

Semi-automatic Rifles

The semi-automatic rifle was invented in 1885. Over the past 137 years we have had 7 mass shooting events as you described with 20 or more killed.

The facts clearly show that mass murderers are NOT choosing to be a great distance from the victims to demonstrate their sniper skills. The hunt in gun free zones and are ambush hunters cutting down their victims up close and personal. It seems the MSM is more effective of creating panic than the AR is.

[Sarah_W]

OK, I was wrong about how he armed himself, but I believe that I was still correct that he had a bad plan because he was not elevated and in a protected area like a SNIPER would desire. If he was just running around on the same level floor as his victims and shooting at SHORT range then he might have been better off (from his perspective) with 2 or more handguns.

I think his plan was faulty because he did not count on an armed Good Samaritan being in the food court and prepared to stop his shooting spree within 15 seconds of beginning.

[Sarah_W]

It is not practical to believe that a handgun can be placed on the hip of every US citizen in ALL situations. They would start shooting each other at the 1st sound of a golf car backfiring. Australia and ALL other 1st world countries do NOT have large gun violence problems. It is the US that does. The US is more than 4 times greater than the next worse country. And even Canada is way better than America. The US has 1.2 guns per PERSON. More guns equate to more killing, not less. Any other conclusion is based on propaganda put out by companies that sell guns. I try to avoid propaganda.

The problem with that theory is Australia didn't solve the problem. They forced their mass murderers to use a different weapon resulting in more mass murder events and more people being killed. It's a hollow victory to suggest, well, gun deaths went down, but knife deaths are way up. Winning! Trading one weapon for another and not reducing the deaths isn't winning.

Every person doesn't have to be armed. Only one person has to be armed and procient to stop a killer. I don't know how many people were in that food court, but Elisha Dicken stopped the killer all by himself before the 911 Operator could say, "state your emergency".

26 of our States now have Constitutional carry. If that was nationwide it would be effective. We're 16 pages into this thread and there is still NO evidence or proof that infringing on American's Right to keep and bear arms will stop mass murder. The reason is plain to see. Law abiding citizens don't kill people. Criminals do. Disarming law abiding citizens will not stop the criminals.

I don't have such a low opinion of our citizens to believe they would be irresponsible with firearms.

[Sarah_W]

I wish that my fellow Americans would seriously question the propaganda that is being put out about guns by those that have a vested interest in them being unaware that the US is the dubious outlier in the list, by country, for gun violence. Mass murders and gun violence are increasing at a RATE where public outcry, even in TV Land will DEMAND a solution, sooner rather than later.

I wish my fellow Americans would actually do the research instead of believing what someone tells them to think. It is ridiculous to compare "gun deaths" while ignoring the alternative deaths. To say the US has far more gun deaths than Australia after Australia severely disarmed it's citizens is disingenuous analysis. We are way better than the Middle East when it comes to honor killings. We are way better than India when it comes to acid attacks.

What propaganda are you referring to?

What evidence do you have that gun violence is rapidly increasing?

Present your evidence and cite your sources.

[Trayderjoe]

Universal background checks are not universal, because they only apply to sales at authorized dealerships, not at gun shows. The "gun show loophole" is an actual thing.

Wrong once again. As I had previously posted to this same claim in May (link (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/2099927-post551.html)):

"Yeah, not quite. Many licensed gun dealers (FFLs) attend gun shows. Federal law requires that an FFL conduct a background check whenever they sell a firearm, whether at their own store or at a booth at a gun show. The ONLY time an FFL is not required under federal law to conduct a background check is if the purchaser has a valid firearm license from the state that is not less than 5 years old per 18 U.S. Code § 922(t). I can't speak to Texas, but my experience in Florida is that license or not, a background check is conducted when purchasing a firearm from an FFL.

It is correct that a private sale does not require a background check and there are some private sales that do occur at gun shows. However, these types of sales are typically "one offs" and not someone at a table selling a hundred guns. Telling you that responsible gun owners making a private sale won't just sell a gun to anyone will fall on deaf ears, but at least I tried."

[Sarah_W]

Universal background checks are not universal, because they only apply to sales at authorized dealerships, not at gun shows. The "gun show loophole" is an actual thing.

If the dealer is at a gun show they still do the background check on all new and used firearms. 21 states require background checks for private party transfers, including gun hows.

That leaves 29 states that do require a background check for a private party transfer.

[jimjamuser]

I think I saw that movie, but I don't think she was the "best sniper."

"The most deadly sniper of World War II: Simo Häyhä. He had 542 confirmed kills, with an unconfirmed total number of 705. Not only is he the most deadly sniper of World War II, but he is also believed to be the most deadly sniper of all time. All his kills were against the Red Army, who nicknamed him White Death."
That's an interesting nickname.......same as mine when I came up to bat years ago in softball.

[jimjamuser]

Men AND women. There is no reason why women should be exempt from military service, from basic training, learning how to fight, learning about their weapons from assembling and field stripping, to shooting and everything in between.

Just like they do in Israel and several other countries around the globe.

Women in the Israel Defense Forces - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Israel_Defense_Forces)
Yes, absolutely.........my mistake.

[jimjamuser]

Suggestion. Don't create a Master Class on Snipers or Mass Shooters. :icon_wink:

The Mundane Pistol

In 2007 the Virginia Tech shooting resulted in 32 killed and 23 injured. The shooter used a pistol.

In 1991 the Luby's shooting in Killeen, Texas resulted in 23 killed and 27 injured. The shooter used a pistol.

2009 Fort Hood shooting resulted in 14 killed and 32 injured. The shooter used two pistols, a semiautomatic and a revolver.

1986 Edmund Post Office shooting resulted in 14 killed and 6 injured. The shooter used a pistol.

I could go on and on. It's public information.

Semi-automatic Rifles

The semi-automatic rifle was invented in 1885. Over the past 137 years we have had 7 mass shooting events as you described with 20 or more killed.

The facts clearly show that mass murderers are NOT choosing to be a great distance from the victims to demonstrate their sniper skills. The hunt in gun free zones and are ambush hunters cutting down their victims up close and personal. It seems the MSM is more effective of creating panic than the AR is.
I am thinking that the average killed during mass murder events is much lower with a pistol than with a RIFLE. But, a lot of their success would depend on how much planning they put into and luck would also play a big factor.

[jimjamuser]

The problem with that theory is Australia didn't solve the problem. They forced their mass murderers to use a different weapon resulting in more mass murder events and more people being killed. It's a hollow victory to suggest, well, gun deaths went down, but knife deaths are way up. Winning! Trading one weapon for another and not reducing the deaths isn't winning.

Every person doesn't have to be armed. Only one person has to be armed and procient to stop a killer. I don't know how many people were in that food court, but Elisha Dicken stopped the killer all by himself before the 911 Operator could say, "state your emergency".

26 of our States now have Constitutional carry. If that was nationwide it would be effective. We're 16 pages into this thread and there is still NO evidence or proof that infringing on American's Right to keep and bear arms will stop mass murder. The reason is plain to see. Law abiding citizens don't kill people. Criminals do. Disarming law abiding citizens will not stop the criminals.

I don't have such a low opinion of our citizens to believe they would be irresponsible with firearms.
As to the last sentence. I would say that I have driven through many states and seen many stop signs with many, many bullet holes through them. That to me is irrefutable proof that Americans can be "irresponsible with firearms"!!!!!!!

[jimjamuser]

The problem with that theory is Australia didn't solve the problem. They forced their mass murderers to use a different weapon resulting in more mass murder events and more people being killed. It's a hollow victory to suggest, well, gun deaths went down, but knife deaths are way up. Winning! Trading one weapon for another and not reducing the deaths isn't winning.

Every person doesn't have to be armed. Only one person has to be armed and procient to stop a killer. I don't know how many people were in that food court, but Elisha Dicken stopped the killer all by himself before the 911 Operator could say, "state your emergency".

26 of our States now have Constitutional carry. If that was nationwide it would be effective. We're 16 pages into this thread and there is still NO evidence or proof that infringing on American's Right to keep and bear arms will stop mass murder. The reason is plain to see. Law abiding citizens don't kill people. Criminals do. Disarming law abiding citizens will not stop the criminals.

I don't have such a low opinion of our citizens to believe they would be irresponsible with firearms.
As to the 3rd paragraph.......I have no intention to interfere with American rights to keep and bear arms. I just want them to bear the arms that shoot a little slower like bolt-actions and single shots. Slower actions than semi-auto give Police more time to arrive and give children and adults more time to run or hide. Also, magazine capacities over 5 should not be allowed to be sold any longer and no silencers and bump-stops. Just as a thought experiment......the Constitution did not say bump-stops should be legal.....mere mortals in the gun-greed industry decided that.

[jimjamuser]

I wish my fellow Americans would actually do the research instead of believing what someone tells them to think. It is ridiculous to compare "gun deaths" while ignoring the alternative deaths. To say the US has far more gun deaths than Australia after Australia severely disarmed it's citizens is disingenuous analysis. We are way better than the Middle East when it comes to honor killings. We are way better than India when it comes to acid attacks.

What propaganda are you referring to?

What evidence do you have that gun violence is rapidly increasing?

Present your evidence and cite your sources.
Gun-related Homicides are at a record last year and up from that this year to date. FBI records.

[Kenswing]

I am thinking that the average killed during mass murder events is much lower with a pistol than with a RIFLE. But, a lot of their success would depend on how much planning they put into and luck would also play a big factor.

No, you’re not thinking. After all of the data that Sarah has provided you still refuse to accept the fact that pistols kill far more people than rifles and are the mass murderers weapon of choice. Now you’ll probably go off on some tangent about snipers. Don’t bother.

[Kenswing]

As to the 3rd paragraph.......I have no intention to interfere with American rights to keep and bear arms. I just want them to bear the arms that shoot a little slower like bolt-actions and single shots. Slower actions than semi-auto give Police more time to arrive and give children and adults more time to run or hide. Also, magazine capacities over 5 should not be allowed to be sold any longer and no silencers and bump-stops. Just as a thought experiment......the Constitution did not say bump-stops should be legal.....mere mortals in the gun-greed industry decided that.
How did you arrive at the five round magazine limit? Just “thinking” again?

There’s no such thing as a silencer. But even if there were, what makes you think it would cut down on mass murder? I haven’t seen silencers or even sound suppressors listed as being common during mass shootings.

What’s a bump stop? I’ve heard you mention it several times. If you’re referring to a bump stock, they have already been banned.

You really need to start doing at least a minimal amount of research on this topic unless your only purpose here is to troll people.