[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by bp243

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

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]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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]

Originally Posted by 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), or “necking it down” to the 32 alcohol related drunk driving deaths per day reported by the NHTSA (link)

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]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

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]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

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]

Originally Posted by jbrown132

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.