[Taltarzac725]

If the government tried to take firearms away from US citizens they would probably hide many of them. And have many people assisting in this. Kind of like Prohibition and alcohol.

I have been wondering what they did about the Tommy Guns from that era? Thompson submachine gun - Wikipedia

National Firearms Act - Wikipedia

[jimjamuser]

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.

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.

[jimjamuser]

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.

Unfortunately, that is a description of a time long ago (and gone) in RURAL America. I grew up in the northern suburbs of a big city and had a friend that said that they had never seen a cow except on TV. Some people may have had a "Leave it to Beaver" type of childhood, but many in the big cities had a different life.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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.

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.

[jimjamuser]

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?

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.

[Aces4]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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.

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.

[jimjamuser]

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?

Americans are very ethnocentric and often prefer to blunder around and make their own mistakes rather than looking to other countries for solutions. Perhaps they consider these other countries to be somehow inferior. As Mr. Winston Churchill said, "America ALWAYS does the right thing, after all other solutions are tried."

[Reiver]

If you want to cut down on mass shootings (and crime in general) there needs to be a return to speedy implementation of punishments that are equitable to the crime, and well publicized.

Public executions would slow down the copycat killers who desire notoriety. Put their heads on a pike in the city hall square.
James Cagney in "Angels with Dirty Faces".

[Reiver]

double post

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Another more drastic measure (for the USA, not so much for other places): instead of maintaining "registration" for all males age 18...

How about mandatory military training and service for all able-bodied/minded men and women between 18 and 20. It should be a civic duty to the country to serve. Plus they get their weapons training, real actual military training rather than this proud boys pretend garbage that gets peddled.

That way this younger generation can grow up to be adults who carry firearms, know how to use them, how NOT to use them, when to use them, when NOT to use them. And they've proven themselves mentally and physically capable of handling it.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

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.

As a purely technical note and with even some semantics thrown in..........even an automatic military rifle fires only ONE bullet out of the barrel at a time. It fires bullets out of the barrel with ONE TRIGGER PULL for as long as it is pulled or when the magazine runs out of rounds. There may have been some derringer or shotgun with 4 barrels that had some kind of hammer that would strike the primers of all 4 barrels at the same time so that the bullets or shot exited the barrels at the same time - but, I don't know about any - and I can't see any advantage to it. And there would be a disadvantage of more weight.

[Blueblaze]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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.

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.

[rogerrice60]

Originally Posted by Keefelane66

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

It's not the weapon, it's the weapon holder

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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.

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.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

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.

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