[nancyre]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

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]

Originally Posted by airstreamingypsy

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

According to whom?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by lpkruege1

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]

Originally Posted by Teemotay

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]

Originally Posted by SUENRAN

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by nancyre

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by Dgodin

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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by RVJim

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]

Originally Posted by Get real

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.