Guns and Mass Shootings

posted by ptown_trojans_1

I get it guys, but what is the same weapon used in all of these high public mass shootings...a high powered rifle.

No, you don't get it.  First off, that's a false statement.  Second, school shootings are 50, maybe 100 deaths per year.  Versus THOUSANDS killed by handguns every year.  There are probably more kids killed in cross fire from gang shootings in a year than by AR's in schools.

Why don't you take 30 seconds to actually look at the statistics, and then consider refining your arguments.  Handguns outnumber rifles about 22:1 in homicides.  Applying that ratio to include unknown guns, and rifles account for about 880 murders per year, or about half that of knives (we must outlaw sharp objects!!!!!).

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

posted by gut

No, you don't get it.  First off, that's a false statement.  Second, school shootings are 50, maybe 100 deaths per year.  Versus THOUSANDS killed by handguns every year.  There are probably more kids killed in cross fire from gang shootings in a year than by AR's in schools.

Why don't you take 30 seconds to actually look at the statistics, and then consider refining your arguments.  Handguns outnumber rifles about 22:1 in homicides.  Applying that ratio to include unknown guns, and rifles account for about 880 murders per year, or about half that of knives (we must outlaw sharp objects!!!!!).

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

You act like it is an either or. I am all for reducing both. 

I'm with you that handgun deaths are more in total. I also think that is a harder problem solve as it brings in a lot of other complicated issues. 

What I am referring to are these high profile mass killings that are occurring on a regular basis that have the high powered rifle involved. 

It seems like any restrictions or even discussions of restricting rifles is immediately shot down as oh no, can't do that. I'm trying to find some middle ground here. 

I'm not saying getting rid of them or taking them like crazy liberals, just trying to think of ideas of how they do not end up in the hands of people in mass shootings like we have seen recently. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Oh OK. I'm sorry if I find something wrong with someone can easily buy a high powered rifle with little to no restrictions or waiting period. 

That argument is fine.

The statement that if someone doesn’t agree with your argument means they are “ok with someone mowing people down…” is asinine and it ruins your argument.

You’re smarter than that.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

We don't know that for sure. But, just making it that much harder for an angry person to buy a high powered rifle may have. 

I don't see how this is a controversial thing. High powered rifles should be in another classification that shotguns, hand guns. Putting restrictions on them is one easy step of many that could be used to help slow these events. 

I can’t think of any of these mass shootings as someone who didn’t plan the whole thing out. They are not typically someone who just got pissed off and bought a gun that day to shoot up a school or church.

They plan them for weeks/months….

So what is a 5 day waiting period going to change, honest question.

It may make a dent in things like domestic violence homicides, but not mass shootings as they are nearly all planned out attacks.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

As Dick Cheney used to say about certain aspects of war, some things are low probability, high impact. 

Yes, hand guns and knifes account for more total deaths, but in terms of higher impact events, high powered riffles produce more damage and more deaths per event. 

I get it guys, but what is the same weapon used in all of these high public mass shootings...a high powered rifle. 

They are different and I don't see how basically having zero restrictions on them makes any sense. 

Your last paragraph proves you have no idea what you are talking about.

No restrictions?

Come on ptown, don’t be that ignorant.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

You act like it is an either or. I am all for reducing both. 

I'm with you that handgun deaths are more in total. I also think that is a harder problem solve as it brings in a lot of other complicated issues. 

What I am referring to are these high profile mass killings that are occurring on a regular basis that have the high powered rifle involved. 

It seems like any restrictions or even discussions of restricting rifles is immediately shot down as oh no, can't do that. I'm trying to find some middle ground here. 

I'm not saying getting rid of them or taking them like crazy liberals, just trying to think of ideas of how they do not end up in the hands of people in mass shootings like we have seen recently. 

AR-15s are not high powered rifles. The .223 round is not a high caliber round compared to most hunting rifles. The news has you convinced an AR is high powered weapon of war but it has never been a military weapon it is made to LOOK like military weapons.

It is commonly used for 2 reasons: they look “cool” and they are easy/lightweight to use. Even 4’11” 80 lb women can shoot them with ease due to how LOW the caliber is and how little recoil/kickback there is. That is why they are the most common rifle sold in the US now, ease of use and “looks”.

A .30-.30, 30-06, .270, 6.5 creedmore, etc are all far more popular hunting rounds and higher caliber/higher powered  

You really need to stop calling an AR, that fires .223 or 5.56 rounds, as high powered. Or regular hunting rifles would be like bazookas to you. 

Nearly every deer hunting rifle (let alone larger animals like elk, moose, etc) are higher powered rifles than an AR-15.

Not hearing a lot of solutions there jmog, just a lot of excuses and trying to make yourself sound smart. 

One cannot deny the AR style weapons are used in most high profile mass shootings. Putting a restriction or delay on how to purchase them is a sensible solution.

posted by jmog

Your last paragraph proves you have no idea what you are talking about.

No restrictions?

Come on ptown, don’t be that ignorant.

Did I say no restrictions? Read again

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Not hearing a lot of solutions there jmog, just a lot of excuses and trying to make yourself sound smart. 

One cannot deny the AR style weapons are used in most high profile mass shootings. Putting a restriction or delay on how to purchase them is a sensible solution.

You can’t start a post with “guess you are ok with someone mowing down children” then complain about others posts. That’s just asinine and you know it.

I explained exactly why it is the weapon of choice, I gave information about the rifle power, the round caliber, and ease of use of the weapon. You provide false information and hyperbolic BS like “you must like killing children”.

You didn’t backtrack or apologize for that dumbass comment.

You didn’t retract your “high powered” rhetoric once shown most hunting rifles are more “high powered”.

You didn’t answer the question what would a 5 day wait do to eliminate these shootings when they are basically all planned out and not spur of the moment rampages.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Did I say no restrictions? Read again

Basically no restrictions is your exact words. You have never bought a rifle if you think there are basically no restrictions.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Not hearing a lot of solutions there jmog, just a lot of excuses and trying to make yourself sound smart. 

One cannot deny the AR style weapons are used in most high profile mass shootings. Putting a restriction or delay on how to purchase them is a sensible solution.

The AR-15 is used in most high profile mass shootings or the media has an agenda and stops covering mass shootings when they realize an AR 15 wasn't used.

Meanwhile, 1000+ kids have died from fentanyl overdoses each of the last two years. 

But the national debate is about whether a ban on "AR-style weapons of war" might save a few dozen lives....

posted by gut

Meanwhile, 1000+ kids have died from fentanyl overdoses each of the last two years. 

But the national debate is about whether a ban on "AR-style weapons of war" might save a few dozen lives....

I’ve already brought it up. News cases are all they care about. Drugs, no bails, no gun task forces… it’s pretend to care but not actually. And they have no response. Other than “do something”.

posted by iclfan2

I’ve already brought it up. News cases are all they care about. Drugs, no bails, no gun task forces… it’s pretend to care but not actually. And they have no response. Other than “do something”.

I'm with you.  No one wants to touch the fentanyl issue because there's no convenient placebo like banning "weapons of war".

And if the Dems do get their AR ban, again, and it doesn't move the needle, again, they'll just claim it wasn't comprehensive enough and demagogue Repubs for blocking useless "solutions".

posted by gut

Meanwhile, 1000+ kids have died from fentanyl overdoses each of the last two years. 

But the national debate is about whether a ban on "AR-style weapons of war" might save a few dozen lives....

It’s not an either/or thing.  There are a lot of tragic things that go on in the world.  One can care about multiple issues.  As a society, there is something particularly egregious about mass murder of little children in a school.  It doesn’t mean people don’t care about drug deaths.  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

It’s not an either/or thing.  There are a lot of tragic things that go on in the world.  One can care about multiple issues.  As a society, there is something particularly egregious about mass murder of little children in a school.  It doesn’t mean people don’t care about drug deaths.  

You can care about multiple issues, but their voting patterns and what they stand for seem to disagree. It seems odd that only “high profile” news stories is all that matters. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

It’s not an either/or thing.  There are a lot of tragic things that go on in the world.  One can care about multiple issues.  As a society, there is something particularly egregious about mass murder of little children in a school.  It doesn’t mean people don’t care about drug deaths.  

Those imprisoned make this distinction.  If you are in prison for doing bad things to little children you are not going to do well.  

People who see politicians running to the microphone for what we all see as political exploitation in these cases find it particularly loathsome as well.

Drug users choose to put a substance in their body.  Unless its suicide by gun the bullet entering the body is involuntary so you can see why people are indifferent with voluntary actions.

Just a grain of salt drug abuse weakens people, firearms empower people.  Something to keep in mind when discerning the motives of a politician. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

It’s not an either/or thing.  There are a lot of tragic things that go on in the world.  One can care about multiple issues.

Yes it is.  That's the reality in a world of finite resources.

One can care about multiple issues, but one would likely choose to focus resources where it can make the most difference.

This is not about loss of life.  Be honest.  It's about the shock and horror and trauma of the event.  An emotional, rather than logical, response.

posted by gut

Yes it is.  That's the reality in a world of finite resources.

One can care about multiple issues, but one would likely choose to focus resources where it can make the most difference.

This is not about loss of life.  Be honest.  It's about the shock and horror and trauma of the event.  An emotional, rather than logical, response.

I disagree that it’s either/or.  It is about the shock and horror too - you’re right about that.  It’s why 9/11 is still remembered vividly.  I understand my child’s chances of being the victim of a school shooter is remote compared to other things.  However the randomness and unpredictability of it make it vivid to us as a society.  I would call it the principle of the matter.

Kids are being killed and you are bringing up drug addicts dying as some reason why we shouldn’t do anything.