Birth
 

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.

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.

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.

Exactly Sarah! If someone shoots me with a tiny little Baretta 25, I am definitely assaulted!!

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

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?

Nicely put!

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.

James Holmes (mass murderer) - Wikipedia

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.

Responsibility
 

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.

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.

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.

Please explain where you got that information.

It is probably from here-- Mass Shootings in 2022 | Gun Violence Archive

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

According to whom?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

According to EveryTown (Gun Control Group) it is 81%: Mass Shootings in America | Everytown Research & Policy | Everytown Research & Policy

According to Statistica it is 75%: • Guns used in mass shootings U.S. 2022 | Statista

According to USCCA it is 86%: Just a moment...

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.

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

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.

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.

That was excessively harsh. And even amateurs like myself are entitled to an opinion on a forum. I am not writing a Doctoral thesis.

I agree with the "term limits" part.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.