[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

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.

Interesting!

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

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.

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.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

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.

There are professional statisticians that are perfectly capable of comparing apples to apples and coming up with worldwide comparisons for different countries. Many people in the US are so ethnocentric that they believe the unlikely statement that the US is # 1 at everything and in ALL categories. It was true that after WW2 the US was in the top 10 in all worldwide categories. Today the Scandinavian countries and Switzerland are in the top ten. The US is around 30th or below in most categories. I think that it may be 21 in higher education. I have not looked in a while, but those lists should not be hard to find. I believe that jingoism is defined as believing that your country can do no wrong.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Larchap49

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

It is not just Australians that have close to ZERO problems with mass murder events, there are dozens of other countries without the problem that the US has.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

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.

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..

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Aces4

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.

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

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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.

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

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Blueblaze

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.

The asylums were emptied out into the slums.... which is almost poetic. I believe that the asylums were emptied out to save taxpayer money for the highest bracket citizens. Mental health care is expensive if done correctly. I would like to compare how mental health treatments are handled in Sweden or Japan and the US. And also what % of GDP is dedicated to it in various countries. Mental health care costs starting at a young age could pay dividends later with an adult that is less inclined to commit crimes of gun violence and mass-murders. The cost could offset each other leaving society more stable.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

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.

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!

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

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

Thank you. And also, a good example of why Police should carry rubber bullets and short shotguns to deal with various possible situations. I wonder if a small stun grenade or an exploding spray of teat gas would have been useful in that situation. Or even a bean bag shot from a shotgun or a shotgun shell loaded with sand???? Just brainstorming stuff.

[Aces4]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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

Point being, if there are mental health issues, simply removing a gun won’t work. If they are ill and determined, there are far worse tactics they will use. A gun may be less lethal than other methods that may be employed… the Oklahoma bombing tragedy comes to mind among other schemes.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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

My mistake on the medical errors it appears I put in an extra zero. It should have said 300,000 people die every year from medical errors. Your Health Care May Kill You: Medical Errors - PubMed

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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.

This bothered me a great deal when I read the ALERRT report on Uvalde. That is the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training center. This is the training center law enforcement sends officers to for rapid response such as mass shootings. Their assessment of the Police response to the Uvalde shooting will anger any adult who cares for innocent victims especially children. You are correct. Ramos crashed the pickup into a ditch. Two employees from a funeral home walked toward him to see if they could help. He took shots at them and they ran back. An officer witnessed this. There is video cam from the officer of Ramos leaving the truck and walking across a field toward the school carrying his rifle.

The distance from the officer to Ramos was 146 yards. He had Ramos in his sights and called his supervisor for permission to take the shot. His supervisor did not respond. The officer called again and by the time he got a response, Ramos had entered the school. This is the point where lack of training failed those children and teachers. The officer knows Ramos took shots at two people, is walking toward a school and is armed and dangerous. He should NOT have called for permission. The officer had an AR and 146 yards is a very easy shot to make. It sickens me that he did not take the shot and avoid the mass shooting all together.

Of the approximately 400 officers who responded to the call that day, they all failed. One of the first officers who arrived tried to engage Ramos but did NOT have support from his fellow officers and when it took concrete shrapnel to his head, he retreated. What followed his actions was nothing short of cowardice.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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..

I don't see that happening. Forced buy back is the same thing as gun confiscation. The term is comical actually since the government didn't sell the guns in the first place they can't "buy back". I do not see this ever happening in our country. I can't fathom the loss of life from the people who would refuse to surrender their guns added to the loss of life from those trying to confiscate them.

Let's use some critical thinking here. As we know most mass shootings are done with handguns. If you think Americans would ever surrender handguns, well, I have no uncertainty the answer is no. Therefore, all of this effort is over AR styled rifles. Millions of dollars spent to try to ban them. I did the math in an earlier post but the reality is AR style rifles are responsible for 30-40 murders per year. So, the 77% of mass shootings would still occur and the 23% of killers who preferred to use an AR wouldn't have one and therefore would opt for handguns instead to do their mass shooting. What would we gain?

Let's start by hardening the schools, which is much more cost effective, and we begin by saving children.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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!

In the words of Col. Jeff Cooper, if you find yourself in a fair fight your tactics suck.