Guns and Mass Shootings

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Also, many of the changes in society in the years since have happened in other countries as well, yet they are not dealing with these situations like we are.  

For starters - and it comes up every time - stop fueling the notoriety and terrorism these shooters seek.  School kids aren't just easy targets, it's a maximum traumatic and fear affect on those communities.  Let's at least acknowledge the problem for what it actually is - suicides that want you to remember their name.

posted by majorspark

Why does societal rot have to be monolithic?  Can societies degenerate and others regenerate?  Where I live I don't always lock the doors when I run to the grocery store.  No one freaks out when they see a teenage Amish boy on his bike riding down the road with rifle slung over his back.  I hear far more gunshots from my front porch on the weekends in the lowlands below than anyone in south Chicago.

As you can see things are quite different around the country.  So what laws are you proposing the feds foist upon all 330 million of us to make us like those other countries?

Yes things are different in different parts of the country.  But mass shootings seem to cross those barriers.  Rich, poor, white, black, north, south.  

I don’t know how to fix it.  I ask the question about what is different in other developed parts of the world because it seems sensible to learn from differences - the same way other countries learn things from us. Why are we such outliers here?  

posted by Ironman92

Schools will now spend insane $$$ and teachers will be required all the training that we’ve been doing for a decade+.

Not to diminish these tragedies, but perhaps a little perspective is in order.  Unless you associate with gang members, you're are more likely to die from lightning than a mass shooting.  Your kids are more likely to die in a car accident than in a mass shooting. 

The media and politicians are probably doing more harm on this issue than good.  Harden the schools is about the only effective option.

I'd also point out the majority of guns used in crimes in this country are stolen - 250k per year.  That's a big part of why gun owners oppose registration - we don't need the criminals to have a shopping list.

And as far as gun bans, that is just folly.  We can't keep illegal drugs (or people) out of this country, so what makes people think we could keep guns out?!?  I'd also add that criminals will seek the path of least resistance in getting a gun.  Thus tougher gun laws are likely to result in a thriving black market, and then those people are completely off the radar.

I'm sure it's been said, but the AR argument is so tired, old and ignorant.  This kid could have done just as much damage with a couple of glocks and a couple extra clips. 

Requiring you be 21 to purchase a "weapon of war" might prevent one or two of these massacres.  Seems reasonable enough.  But the operating assumption is that they'll wait to buy an AR legally, and in those few extra years outgrow their mass murdering pyschosis.

posted by gut

Not to diminish these tragedies, but perhaps a little perspective is in order.  Unless you associate with gang members, you're are more likely to die from lightning than a mass shooting.  Your kids are more likely to die in a car accident than in a mass shooting. 

The media and politicians are probably doing more harm on this issue than good.  Harden the schools is about the only effective option.

I'd also point out the majority of guns used in crimes in this country are stolen - 250k per year.  That's a big part of why gun owners oppose registration - we don't need the criminals to have a shopping list.

And as far as gun bans, that is just folly.  We can't keep illegal drugs (or people) out of this country, so what makes people think we could keep guns out?!?  I'd also add that criminals will seek the path of least resistance in getting a gun.  Thus tougher gun laws are likely to result in a thriving black market, and then those people are completely off the radar.

I'm sure it's been said, but the AR argument is so tired, old and ignorant.  This kid could have done just as much damage with a couple of glocks and a couple extra clips. 

Requiring you be 21 to purchase a "weapon of war" might prevent one or two of these massacres.  Seems reasonable enough.  But the operating assumption is that they'll wait to buy an AR legally, and in those few extra years outgrow their mass murdering pyschosis.

Most of these mass shootings are not committed with stolen guns, but guns boughten legally.  And I know what you say about the argument about military style weapons (or the AR in this case) see being tired.  But then why are so many of these shootings committed with those racy type of weapons if there is not some advantage to using them?

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I ask the question about what is different in other developed parts of the world because it seems sensible to learn from differences - the same way other countries learn things from us. Why are we such outliers here?  

I don't know but in other parts of the world over the last 100 or so years 10's of millions of civilians have been killed and countless major cities razed to the ground.  Today in Europe they are at it again.  This type of loss of innocent civilians over the same time period has not happened in this country.  Not even close.  So I ask the question about what is different in other developed parts of the world?  Why are we such outliers here?

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

But then why are so many of these shootings committed with those racy type of weapons if there is not some advantage to using them?

Because they look cool.

posted by jmog

So how do you know what type of gun I or anyone else for that matter “needs”?

Because I’m just an asshole that knows.

We don’t “need” most of the stuff we have if you are going to ignore 90% of my post.

I’ll reiterate….we need good guardians for EVERY kid at home….and we need 5x more counselors.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Most of these mass shootings are not committed with stolen guns, but guns boughten legally.  And I know what you say about the argument about military style weapons (or the AR in this case) see being tired.  But then why are so many of these shootings committed with those racy type of weapons if there is not some advantage to using them?

There’s no advantage to using them over a semi-auto “brown/wood” rifle. The only difference between them and a semi-auto hunting rifle is they look “cool” and “scary”.  They are made to LOOK like military weapons.

There is no tactical advantage with an AR-15 over a semi-auto hunting rifle. 

posted by Ironman92

Because I’m just an asshole that knows.

We don’t “need” most of the stuff we have if you are going to ignore 90% of my post.

I’ll reiterate….we need good guardians for EVERY kid at home….and we need 5x more counselors.

But you have no idea what type of gun I “need” and quite frankly it’s none of anyones business what type of gun I have or need.

posted by gut

Not to diminish these tragedies, but perhaps a little perspective is in order.  Unless you associate with gang members, you're are more likely to die from lightning than a mass shooting.  Your kids are more likely to die in a car accident than in a mass shooting. 

The media and politicians are probably doing more harm on this issue than good.  Harden the schools is about the only effective option.

I'd also point out the majority of guns used in crimes in this country are stolen - 250k per year.  That's a big part of why gun owners oppose registration - we don't need the criminals to have a shopping list.

And as far as gun bans, that is just folly.  We can't keep illegal drugs (or people) out of this country, so what makes people think we could keep guns out?!?  I'd also add that criminals will seek the path of least resistance in getting a gun.  Thus tougher gun laws are likely to result in a thriving black market, and then those people are completely off the radar.

I'm sure it's been said, but the AR argument is so tired, old and ignorant.  This kid could have done just as much damage with a couple of glocks and a couple extra clips. 

Requiring you be 21 to purchase a "weapon of war" might prevent one or two of these massacres.  Seems reasonable enough.  But the operating assumption is that they'll wait to buy an AR legally, and in those few extra years outgrow their mass murdering pyschosis.

The “math” of this definitely affects how I feel on this. Covid scares worked in similar fashion.

We have to do fire drills 9x a year….don’t think anyone in the US has been harmed by a fire in a school in 60+ years.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

But then why are so many of these shootings committed with those racy type of weapons if there is not some advantage to using them?

Maybe because fear is a main component of terrorism, and maximal impact means using the gun so many have been conditioned to fear as a "weapon of war".  There's some advantage to more ammo in a clip and easy exchange, but when you aren't encountering resistance it really doesn't matter.  I think a standard glock can hold 16 rounds, and extended clips are available.  An AR ban, which was already tried and failed once, really won't do shit.

Also, the guns being legally purchased is a red herring.  Do you really believe there is a gun law that will stop someone willing to die committing a mass shooting from figuring out how to get a gun?

On a related note, I think a plot was just foiled involving an AK-47...I'm guessing it was not purchased legally.

posted by Ironman92

The “math” of this definitely affects how I feel on this. Covid scares worked in similar fashion.

We have to do fire drills 9x a year….don’t think anyone in the US has been harmed by a fire in a school in 60+ years.

Agreed.  This is the result when fear and sensationalism drive policy instead of facts and data.

But there's no easy solution, if there even is one.  Which is why the Dems love it as a wedge issue.  There are at least a few people on this board that literally believe Repubs don't care about kids getting killed simply because they disagree that gun laws are the solution.  A similar hot take would be that Dems don't care because they want to use school shootings to advance their anti-gun agenda.

The .223 round is highly lethal in spite of its small diameter due to its shape and high velocity.

That said, the sickos probably opt for it as much or more because it looks cool.

Shootings/attacks on schools have happened throughout history, but they were much more rare.

I think what's changed is the media coverage which, for sickos, glorifies these attacks.

posted by gut

Shootings/attacks on schools have happened throughout history, but they were much more rare.

I think what's changed is the media coverage which, for sickos, glorifies these attacks.

But there are sickos everywhere.  Why do the ones here commit school shootings so much more frequently.

posted by jmog

So how do you know what type of gun I or anyone else for that matter “needs”?

In my opinion, no one needs a semi automatic pistol or rifle for their private use.  But like abortion, I don’t believe the two sides of this topic will ever be reconciled.  So a solution must be sought elsewhere.

posted by gut

Agreed.  This is the result when fear and sensationalism drive policy instead of facts and data.

But there's no easy solution, if there even is one.  Which is why the Dems love it as a wedge issue.  There are at least a few people on this board that literally believe Repubs don't care about kids getting killed simply because they disagree that gun laws are the solution.  A similar hot take would be that Dems don't care because they want to use school shootings to advance their anti-gun agenda.

Politicians from both sides use this issue for their own gain.  Every time one of these happens, the same voices cry out “Ban weapons” or “Here they come to take your rights” depending on the side.  Like with every other issue, neither extreme does any service to dealing with the reality.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

In my opinion, no one needs a semi automatic pistol or rifle for their private use. 

I sure thought I needed mine when the local heroin user and girlfriend set up in the drive back to our house (1/2 mile from the road), then came up to the house to try to hit us up for money, then were really hesitant to be on their way. It very much seemed like a possible matter of life and death.

posted by jmog

But you have no idea what type of gun I “need” and quite frankly it’s none of anyones business what type of gun I have or need.

Also I'm not sure where rights got limited to our needs as opposed to our wants that we work hard to afford.

posted by gut

Maybe because fear is a main component of terrorism, and maximal impact means using the gun so many have been conditioned to fear as a "weapon of war".  There's some advantage to more ammo in a clip and easy exchange, but when you aren't encountering resistance it really doesn't matter.  I think a standard glock can hold 16 rounds, and extended clips are available.  An AR ban, which was already tried and failed once, really won't do shit.

Also, the guns being legally purchased is a red herring.  Do you really believe there is a gun law that will stop someone willing to die committing a mass shooting from figuring out how to get a gun?

On a related note, I think a plot was just foiled involving an AK-47...I'm guessing it was not purchased legally.

The assault weapons ban? It did not fail, it was allowed to expire in 2005.

Once it did, we saw the growth in AR style weapons.