An honest conversation about mass murder events
 

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

Given your profile picture we know where your bias is at. No thanks not interested in engaging with an obviously biased original poster with some sort of agenda.

Every thread in this forum is started by someone with an obvious bias. lol

Probably not the ones about favorite movies :icon_wink:

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

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?

What is an assault weapon?

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!

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.

outlaw lunatics...problem solved. oh yeah term limits for the dopes that can't get a real job.

And that is the problem right there. That YOU have decided that the problem is a failure of uniform definition of the term "mass murder."

Here's the solution to that problem: stop insisting that's the problem. That's not the problem. The definition of "mass murder" doesn't matter a darned bit.

What matters is that people who shouldn't have had firearms, had them, and used them to kill people who they didn't have the right to kill.

That's the "problem."

I'm trying to determine what your point is exactly. At no time have I said that I am an expert or scholar on the Constitution. I did say my bias is based on my knowledge of the Constitution. My knowledge is based on my study of the Constitution, speaking in public on the topic, my personal library containing about 70 books related to the Constitution, including a 1785 copy of Samuel Johnson's dictionary, the same dictionary our Founding Fathers used. Of course, anything I say on the Constitution is easily verified. Lastly, my study of law was at University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB) and I don't recall any of my professor's names.

My image shouldn't intimidate you at all. That just comes across kinda snarky.

I'm also a member of the NRA, CRPA, USCCA, USPSA, and SCSA. I'm an NRA Certified Pistol Instructor, Certified Range Safety Officer, Certified Range Development and Operations, Certified to teach Refuse To Be A Victim. I'm the founder of the US Women's Shooting Academy and am a competition shooter in Steel Challenge, Action Pistol, and Precision Rifle Series.

Of course it matters. Everyone is up in arms (forgive the pun) claiming that banning AR's will solve the problem when 77% of mass shootings are done by handguns, not AR's. How many mass murder events have happened so far in 2022? Everyone has a different answer to that. Why?

Every problem can be solved with a Cause and Effects Analysis (Ishikawa) combined with Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). Or, as we do in criminal law, we should look at Means, Motive and Opportunity. I see nobody even attempting to solve the problem.

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.

Okay so let's establish that "Mass Shooting" is no fewer than 5 victims, at least one of them must be a stranger to the others, none of them should be undocumented immigrants, and none of them should be pregnant females.

That's still one person who shouldn't have had a firearm, having one, and using it to kill people. And THAT one person is the only "problem" that needs to be solved.

In any discussion you have to have a frame of reference, define the terms, that's what language is all about otherwise I'am talking about apple's you are talking about oranges without the possibility of communication. Sociological factors are the root of the problem. Fifty years ago semi auto surplus military weapons were cheep, abundant, and very easy to acquire and mass shooting were very rare. We are swimming in a sea of information with no emphasis on critical thinking . Its very easy to find all manner of information that will support, reinforce ANY idea we care to have , you always find what you are looking for, if not the real article a reason or excuse that will satisfy our held opinions. The result is any "idea" has as much merit as it has popular appeal. What has changed? Then if you had the opinion that something like a "zombie apocalypse" was possible, that a reasonable explanation for a missing air liner was alien abduction , that you could change your gender you would rightfully be considered delusional and be treated as such. Our society is becoming less and less stable.

I always enjoy reading your post, I respect your knowledge and admire your goals in helping others to protect themselves. But I have to tell you regardless of the definition of "mass murder", the problem, and I'm speaking here about young men committing mass murders, as I see it, stems from the lack of parental guidance, or, breakdown of family values. You do not need a search warrant to inspect your child's bedroom. If that were done Columbine would never have happened. Like so many others, my wife (now deceased) and I busted our butts to put our 2 children through college and give them a head start in life, all the while giving good examples of living a moral life. IMHO, many parents today need to re-prioritize their lifestyle and focus on their children rather than accumulating more "stuff". "You preach a better sermon with your life than you do with your lips".

No position
 

I do have a gun, but I do not take one position or another on firearms. There is no doubt in the United States we have a problem with mass shootings. Now one side wants to stop the sales of semiautomatics and the other side stands for the right to bear arms and to weed out the mentally ill. I would agree with the right to bear arms, except there is no way to know who is not fit to own a weapon. There is one more problem, yesterday here in Florida and 18-year-old shot and killed his 17-year-old friend by accident. There are too many of these incidents like this every year.

The media, in my opinion, is controlling the narrative and therefore public opinion. Because a lack of a proper definition of a mass shooting, those who are keeping track with databases count every shooting where 3 people are shot and the circumstance doesn't matter.

1. A couple of days ago four teen agers at Cutler Manor Apartments in Miami were shot in a drive-by shooting. Authorities think the shooter(s) were trying to shoot a teen and also struck three other teen agers. None died and all were treated at the hospital. This event is listed as a mass shooting in the databases who collect the data and is being counted as another mass shooting. Barely a blip in the news. Four inured.

2. 3 days ago in Fairbanks, Alaska a 15 year old boy shot and killed three of his siblings 5, 8, and 17 and killed himself. Murder suicide. This event is listed as a mass shooting in the databases who collect the data and is being counted as another mass shooting.Barely a blip in the news. Four dead

3. The Greenwood Mall shooter killed three people and wounded one. A young girl also was injured by shrapnel. The media frenzy was and is still off the charts.

All three of these events are listed in the databases that track mass shootings. In my opinion only #3 should be considered a mass shooting. The motives are very different, the planning is very different. The method of shootings were very different.

In #1 and #2 the victims are known to the shooter, they were targeted because of who they were to the shooter and shot with handguns. There was something wrong in the relationship and motive. #3 was purely indiscriminate with the purpose of shooting as many strangers as possible. The planning was very different.

These shootings are not equal and should not be counted to artificially escalate numbers to instill fear in the public and drive a narrative that a certain type of weapon should be removed from the entire population.

I don't think so ...
 

When I first read the title of this thread, my initial thought was 'I don't think so.'

Now, having read two pages of comments on the subject, my thought is 'I don't think so.'

Agreed! Guns harm no one, it’s the person with the Gun and the intent to cause harm. Your analogy is spot on!

Thank you

I see 2 major reasons, among many others. Drugs, mostly legal prescribed drugs to control our kids. Hollywood, always killing people. Just watch Mayans on FX. They kill many people every show.

Exactly. A strong family unit makes a huge difference.

Attempting to set a definition that everyone can agree on is not bias. It is nothing more than plain common sense. How can there be a discussion if everyone has their own definition of what is being discussed?

Why not? The prerequisite of having an honest conversation is to actually be honest. There are so many flaws in the national conversation regarding mass shootings that I fear we will never solve the problem, merely putting bandaids on a severed limb will not save the life. Misdirecting the conversation will not solve mass shootings. We have a lot of very smart people in our society and nobody seems to actually be trying to understand the problem. Where is the expert team of psychologists and forensic experts dismantling the events to determine why the event happened in the first place and therefore create a plan to address it?

Mass shootings
 

So very very well stated but so against the reigning authority.

The above post is an excellent definition of the problem with this entire discussion. As an attorney friend of mine used to say; "everyone is entitled to their own opinion. NO one is entitled to their own facts". When people cherry-pick data in order to support agendae, whatever their particular agenda might be, you don't get a reasoned debate. You get, essentially, chaos.

The example above is merely one of several that point out the fundamental dishonesty of this debate, as I've seen it, over the years. Others include:

1. Counting the perpetrator, if he or she is killed in the process, as a "victim". The logic of doing that escapes me. All it does, is pad the number of total victims.

2. The vast majority of these killings are done, not with AR - style rifles, but with HANDGUNS. Yet the proponents of stricter controls on guns lump those numbers into their argument in favor of banning AR - style rifles when logic dictates that, considering that handguns kill far more, they SHOULD be out to ban handguns. But they're not. The inescapable conclusion is that, even if all semi-auto rifles were somehow made to vanish tomorrow, it would decrease the number of these deaths by maybe 1/4, if that. Again, the logic of that escapes me.

3. Study after study indicates that many (most?) of these AR-15 - toting macho killer types are COPYCATS. They see the notoriety that previous shooters have gained with their bada$$ guns that everybody hates and decide to try for an even greater negative splash. So they buy, borrow or steal an AR-15 and go to work. Numbers are all over the board but I've seen those numbers at anywhere from 40% to 75% or more. What would the result be if, instead of splashing the gory details on every medium possible, these shootings were reported about the way we report stock-market numbers? The INFORMATION would still be out there, but the incentive for copycat would not be. We could do that tomorrow, and by so doing save many more lives than banning AR - style rifles, but we don't. And nobody has yet come up with a rational explanation why we don't. For the third time, the logic of that escapes me.

4. The terminology used is part of the problem. Picture in your mind two media stories of (say) a retiring governor. Every word in the two stories are identical. Punctuation is identical. They're mirror images of one another EXCEPT in how they describe the retiring governor. The first story describes him as an "venerable statesman", the second as an "aging politician". I don't know about most people but the mental image of the retiring governor that I'd get from story #1 would be along the lines of, say, a Winston Churchill. The second? Teddy Kennedy. Remember, the INFORMATION we got from the story is precisely the same, but the MENTAL IMAGE, and thus our sense of the person in question, is decidedly different. The debates over the killings have precisely the same flaw, in my opinion. We get gory (often wildly exaggerated) details about the damage done to the victims. The fact that the victims are dead, in some of those stories seems almost incidental. The GORE is what is emphasized. Again, the logic of that escapes me.

CAN we have a reasoned debate on the subject of these mass killings? Well, we can try, and I certainly hope we can succeed. But that can ONLY happen if all parties involved forego the emotion and stick to the pertinent facts. And so far, that has not happened.

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

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.

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.

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.

Destruction of the family
 

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.

Gun laws
 

Do you think another law will help. Prostitution, drugs , and all manner of other thing are outlawed or banned but the laws stop none of it. Laws on the books need to be enforced. Banning items just creates a black market. Resulting in only law breakers having those items. Our leadership from the lowest level has failed us

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?

Really?
 

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.

Nothing off the table
 

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.

So just how are you going to find this one person? They don’t have prior records, they are not immigrants, and finally using mental health issues is misleading because some of them have never been identified as mental health patients. They could be sociopaths so there is no treatment for them.

It did nothing, all words that make you feel better. My personal opinion is you will never be able to tell free people they can’t have something the constitution clearly says we can. It’s the wrong approach plus the fact that there are believed to be over 200 million guns in America now and it will start an armed conflict if it’s tried. How about we study who these people that do these things are and see if we can find the common threads. In disclosure I own an AR but also own a shotgun. As much damage as an AR will do a shotgun would be a better gun. Banning AR’s won’t put a dent in this kind of crime.

Bird's eye view
 

I know you're arguing there should not be a ban on AR-15s, but if you take a bird's eye view of the way you are presenting your argument it would seem we need tighter restriction on all firearms. That's not my position, but we have more gun related deaths than any other country.