Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2120128)

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

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 Sarah_W (Post 2120128)

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

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2120194)

What is an assault weapon?

Originally Posted by airstreamingypsy (Post 2120337)

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

Originally Posted by nancyre (Post 2120467)

Please explain where you got that information.

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2120128)

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

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 Sarah_W (Post 2120193)

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?