Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2120495)

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.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2120512)

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.

Originally Posted by Blackbird45 (Post 2120540)

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.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2120543)

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.

Originally Posted by Trayderjoe (Post 2120228)

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.

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2120550)

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.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2120543)

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.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2120561)

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.

Originally Posted by jbrown132 (Post 2120346)

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.

Originally Posted by Annie66 (Post 2120347)

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.

Originally Posted by lpkruege1 (Post 2120349)

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.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2120585)

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.

Originally Posted by Jacob85 (Post 2120354)

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?

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2120585)

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.

Originally Posted by bp243 (Post 2120416)

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?

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2120531)

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.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2120534)

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.

Originally Posted by Keefelane66 (Post 2120188)

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

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2120592)

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.

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2120541)

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.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2120544)

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.

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2120556)

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.

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2120558)

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.

Originally Posted by Larchap49 (Post 2120566)

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

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2120587)

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.

Originally Posted by Aces4 (Post 2120600)

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.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2120636)

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.

Originally Posted by Blueblaze (Post 2120613)

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.

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2120624)

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.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2120650)

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

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2120647)

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

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2120626)

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

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2120636)

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.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2120644)

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..

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2120663)

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!