USA Shootings (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

The common denominator of mass shootings is semi-automatic weapons.   No citizen needs a semi-automatic weapon of any kind, but due to the Supreme Court’s rulings in Miller and Heller handguns are essentially untouchable.   So what’s left is doing what we can—regulate semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, require safe storage, expanded background checks, create and fund a national gun registry, prohibit all violent felons, stalkers, and domestic abusers from owning guns, close gun show loopholes, raise purchase age to 21, ban guns from all public buildings.

Except for the last (Virginia allows open carry in all public buildings except courts), none of this would have prevented yesterday’s shooting, but it would prevent others in the future.

We can certainly ban AR-15s. We have before. 

 

[timschochet]

...Seems reasonable. You'd make a great politician.

I’d make a terrible politician. 

ETA and you misunderstand me if you think I am attacking those who I disagree with on this. “There is nothing to be done” simply means we have reached a point of impasse that we can’t negotiate. For instance, I am very pro-choice. I respect pro-life people, I think I understand them and vice versa, but there is a point of impasse there in which we simply can’t agree or reach a compromise agreeable to both sides. There is nothing to be done, and thus all either side can do is attempt to win elections. 

 

[-fish-]

We can certainly ban AR-15s. We have before. 

Sure.  Semiautomatic rifles and shotguns can be significantly regulated or even banned under current case law.   You haven't participated in this thread much, but the NRA talking point you'll get is "why are you banning semi-automatic rifles when they're only used in 2% of homicides?" (This is after they claim there is no such thing as an assault rifle).    It's helpful to recognize that semi-automatic handguns are a bigger problem, but legislation of those weapons is severely restricted. 

By the way, here's some good info on stricter gun regulation resulting in lower incidents of gun violence.  This graphic is pretty telling.  The Scientific American article I was thinking of was actually about a JAMA study showing that more guns do not make people safer.   Gun advocates in this thread continue to push bogus studies by John Lott and Gary Kleck which support a false narrative that concealed carry and open carry somehow result in less gun violence.   They don't.

 

[-fish-]

I’d make a terrible politician. 

ETA and you misunderstand me if you think I am attacking those who I disagree with on this. “There is nothing to be done” simply means we have reached a point of impasse that we can’t negotiate. For instance, I am very pro-choice. I respect pro-life people, I think I understand them and vice versa, but there is a point of impasse there in which we simply can’t agree or reach a compromise agreeable to both sides. There is nothing to be done, and thus all either side can do is attempt to win elections. 

We have not reached a point of impasse, particularly at the state level.  California, Washington, Oregon and Illinois all passed significant gun regulations in 2018, with Washington adopting some of the most significant legislation in the country.   Feds banned bump stocks.  At least half of the states enacted some kind of gun control legislation in 2018.   

The NRA's influence is dying, and for the first time political spending in favor of gun regulation was greater than the NRA and its cohorts spending against it.  

 

[timschochet]

Sure.  Semiautomatic rifles and shotguns can be significantly regulated or even banned under current case law.   You haven't participated in this thread much, but the NRA talking point you'll get is "why are you banning semi-automatic rifles when they're only used in 2% of homicides?" (This is after they claim there is no such thing as an assault rifle).    It's helpful to recognize that semi-automatic handguns are a bigger problem, but legislation of those weapons is severely restricted. 

By the way, here's some good info on stricter gun regulation resulting in lower incidents of gun violence.  This graphic is pretty telling.  The Scientific American article I was thinking of was actually about a JAMA study showing that more guns do not make people safer.   Gun advocates in this thread continue to push bogus studies by John Lott and Gary Kleck which support a false narrative that concealed carry and open carry somehow result in less gun violence.   They don't.

Thanks. I know about John Lott. Guy used to always be on TV. 

I used to participate in previous gun threads but haven’t so much in this one, mainly because of stealthycat. He has dominated this thread with simplistic arguments and statements; whenever he is challenged or proven wrong, he doesn’t respond; he disappears, only to return in a few days to make the exact same arguments he did before as if the refutations never existed. It’s aggravating to read. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

I don’t think it does. I repeat: if an AR-15 was used yesterday, I believe more lives would have been lost. Is this an unreasonable assumption? 

I think without knowing the layout of the building or how this went down, I don't think we can accurately make any guesses. I dont think the AR-15 makes that big of a difference for inside buildings and I guess in some scenarios could be less deadly.

But for vegas it obviously made all of the difference in the world. If another vegas happens I can't imagine what will happen to hotel security and policies as well as venues. I wonder if the people that fight so hard to keep these legal realize how many freedoms we will lose in exchange for that.

That isn't to say I don't care about the casualties, I would easily trade all of the AR-15s in the world for hundreds of people not being shot. I have even said that at this point I would trade all of the AR-15s in the world if it just made some of the parents that lost kids feel better. But obviously that isn't the opinion of others and it isnt realistic. So I wonder if they realize what they stand to lose other than big guns.  

 

[timschochet]

We have not reached a point of impasse, particularly at the state level.  California, Washington, Oregon and Illinois all passed significant gun regulations in 2018, with Washington adopting some of the most significant legislation in the country.   Feds banned bump stocks.  At least half of the states enacted some kind of gun control legislation in 2018.   

The NRA's influence is dying, and for the first time political spending in favor of gun regulation was greater than the NRA and its cohorts spending against it.  

What I mean by impasse is that I can’t talk to the more strident pro NRA types. There is nothing to be done but defeat them. Which it sounds like we are doing so good. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

Thanks. I know about John Lott. Guy used to always be on TV. 

I used to participate in previous gun threads but haven’t so much in this one, mainly because of stealthycat. He has dominated this thread with simplistic arguments and statements; whenever he is challenged or proven wrong, he doesn’t respond; he disappears, only to return in a few days to make the exact same arguments he did before as if the refutations never existed. It’s aggravating to read. 

I am surprised he hasn't popped in to remind us that it's not the guns, it the person, and if he didn't have guns he would have killed all those people with knives or baseball bats. 

 

[Don Quixote]

Found out that someone that I’ve played college fantasy football with for the past 15 years or so was injured and is in ICU.  Feeling devastated right now, and hoping for as quick a recovery as possible for him.

ETA: @Ramblin Wreck I don’t want to post his name, but I think you have played some FF with him too.

This is the cover from the Virginian Pilot today.   That’s him in the cover photo.  

 

[2Squirrels1Nut]

After these seemingly endless tragedies I always wonder how many of the victims and their families were against sensible gun laws like getting rid of semi-automatic weapons.  The reason of course in the hopes that it changes some hearts and minds so that we can end this insanity. 

:(

 

[BigSteelThrill]

A: Less guns.

 

[EYLive]

Using your thought process, people love lots of things more than fellow humans. 

Let's start with the thread that discusses saving your dog or a stranger from drowning. It wasn't being denied 15 years ago either.

Just more deflection. Gun lovers are pathetic and don't care how many innocent people are murdered. 

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Just more deflection.

That how my woman "debates".

 

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

Last person to die was from here.

https://www.bakersfield.com/news/breaking/bakersfield-native-bhs-alum-killed-in-virginia-beach-shooting/article_84837f12-84b5-11e9-b70c-0bd03c5dae0b.html

There’s a couple FBG’s that might have gone to HS with her.

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

In January, Virginia legislature  killed bill to ban sales of large-capacity magazines.

A Virginia bill designed to ban sales of large-capacity magazines similar to those used by the Virginia Beach gunman died in committee in January on a party-line vote.

The fate of the legislation, SB1748, was so widely expected that the outcome drew virtually no public attention. For more than 20 years, Republicans and a few rural Democrats in the General Assembly have killed almost every measure aimed at restricting gun ownership.

The GOP blocked a major push for gun control after the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings, where 33 people died. They chose instead to respond to that shooting by joining Democrats to enact mental-health reforms.

Although there are signs that public opinion has been shifting in favor of gun control in Virginia, the state has a history of support for gun rights symbolized by the location in Fairfax of the headquarters of the National Rifle Association.

Read more here https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-news/in-january-virginia-gop-killed-bill-to-ban-sales-of-large-capacity-gun-magazines-like-those-used-by-virginia-beach-shooter/2019/06/01/ee5efd8e-8489-11e9-933d-7501070ee669_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_source=reddit.com&utm_term=.46c1b685188f

 

[KarmaPolice]

In January, Virginia legislature  killed bill to ban sales of large-capacity magazines.

Read more here https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-news/in-january-virginia-gop-killed-bill-to-ban-sales-of-large-capacity-gun-magazines-like-those-used-by-virginia-beach-shooter/2019/06/01/ee5efd8e-8489-11e9-933d-7501070ee669_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_source=reddit.com&utm_term=.46c1b685188f

After the Virginia Tech slayings, then the worst mass shooting by an individual in U.S. history, gun-control advocates led by then-Gov. Tim Kaine (D), now a U.S. senator, pushed hard to change some laws. The centerpiece of his package was a proposal to require gun sellers to conduct background checks on all buyers at gun shows.

Instead, with GOP support, the legislature lowered the standard under which a mentally ill person can be forced into treatment, and expanded the criteria under which a mentally ill person can be barred from buying or owning guns. It also boosted funding by $42 million for community-based mental health treatment.

The response disappointed gun-control advocates, including relatives and friends of Virginia Tech victims, who said people diagnosed with mental illness are less likely than others to commit violence with a firearm.

I thought this part of the article was interesting and was hitting a lot of the stuff that people have been talking about in this thread recently.  I guess I don't understand the point of expanding the criteria where somebody can be barred from buying a gun if they aren't checking at gun shows.  

 

[GoBirds]

This is the cover from the Virginian Pilot today.   That’s him in the cover photo.  

Oh man you know him? Mentioned he was in ICU.....will he be able to fully recover? Can’t imagine what he went through. 

 

[Don Quixote]

Oh man you know him? Mentioned he was in ICU.....will he be able to fully recover? Can’t imagine what he went through. 

I have seen some updates on his Facebook page, but, to be sensitive to family desires, I don’t want to share beyond what has been made public.

 

[[scooter]]

This is the cover from the Virginian Pilot today.   That’s him in the cover photo.  

Wow.

 

[KCitons]

Odd how one side can argue for regulation that saves 1 or 2 lives. But fail to take into account the 1 or 2 lives that may be lost if/when someone is prohibited due to legislation. . 

Is there a difference if an unarmed person is shot at a place of worship, school or work by a mass shooter - or shot by a criminal in their car, home or place of business without the ability to protect themselves? The numbers will always fall on the side of anti gun because we have mass shooting statistics to point to. Where in the case of self defense, just the resistance of having a gun present ends the situation from progressing. 

 

[timschochet]

Odd how one side can argue for regulation that saves 1 or 2 lives. But fail to take into account the 1 or 2 lives that may be lost if/when someone is prohibited due to legislation. . 

Is there a difference if an unarmed person is shot at a place of worship, school or work by a mass shooter - or shot by a criminal in their car, home or place of business without the ability to protect themselves? The numbers will always fall on the side of anti gun because we have mass shooting statistics to point to. Where in the case of self defense, just the resistance of having a gun present ends the situation from progressing. 

Can you offer a real life example where one of the proposed regulations we are discussing here has cost a life? 

 

[KCitons]

We have not reached a point of impasse, particularly at the state level.  California, Washington, Oregon and Illinois all passed significant gun regulations in 2018, with Washington adopting some of the most significant legislation in the country.   Feds banned bump stocks.  At least half of the states enacted some kind of gun control legislation in 2018.   

The NRA's influence is dying, and for the first time political spending in favor of gun regulation was greater than the NRA and its cohorts spending against it.  

Secondly, as many have posted in this thread, the majority of the population wants changes to gun laws. Part of that population consists of wealthy and famous people. It would take little effort to exceed the budget of the NRA. 

So, it's not that complicated. If the NRA can buy politicians why can't WSF? If it's truly the will of the people and the money being offered is greater than the money being offered by the NRA, why would a politician choose to support something that less people want, and for less money?

I'm not saying it's guaranteed to work. I have said multiple times in this thread, if people don't like the NRA create an Anti-NRA organization. The only reason someone like yourself would choose to discredit this thought, is because you don't truly want a solution, you just want to complain about the problem. 

I mentioned this a long time ago. Everyone said that the NRA is too big, too well funded, and too influential in politics to ever conquer. 

 

[KCitons]

Can you offer a real life example where one of the proposed regulations we are discussing here has cost a life? 

Can you define what you think are the proposed regulations being discussed here?

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

Can you offer a real life example where one of the proposed regulations we are discussing here has cost a life? 

Don’t take the bait, Tim.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I am curious why someone who seems to realize the danger/risk of CC and said he chooses not to CC comes in today and says it's weird that nobody argues about the potential lives saved by CC. 

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

I am curious why someone who seems to realize the danger/risk of CC and said he chooses not to CC comes in today and says it's weird that nobody argues about the potential lives saved by CC. 

You know what else is weird? 

That nobody argues about how popcorn chicken isn’t sold in movie theaters.

 

[KarmaPolice]

You know what else is weird? 

That nobody argues about how popcorn chicken isn’t sold in movie theaters.

Thanks, now I want popcorn chicken at my next movie.  I 

 

[John Blutarsky]

You know what else is weird? 

That nobody argues about how popcorn chicken isn’t sold in movie theaters.

Popcorn shrimp! 

 

[GoBirds]

I have seen some updates on his Facebook page, but, to be sensitive to family desires, I don’t want to share beyond what has been made public.

Can’t believe they put that picture in the paper. They are a pathetic publication, if you read some of the write ups on victims they stalked out even those families wanting privacy. 

More importantly I hope your buddy can bounce back from this over time, unimaginable what he went through. 

 

[Henry Ford]

This thread is about USA shootings and there are dead bodies.  Usually in this forum we’ve had a bit of respect and talked about what happened before we descended into full-scale tribalistic and political arguments.  I’ve said many times that I think it’s absurd that semi-automatic guns are allowed.  But for today, let’s chill and respect the victims and their families and discuss what happened. If that’s just not how this forum works anymore, I’ll move on to a different one in the aftermath of tragedies.

As of the Virginia Beach shooting it was day 151 of the year and there had been 150 mass shootings.  

We have to talk about these things at some point.  

 

[timschochet]

Can you define what you think are the proposed regulations being discussed here?

Sure. 

1. Universal background checks. 

2. A ban on AR-15s

Let’s start with those. 

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

Sure. 

1. Universal background checks. 

2. A ban on AR-15s

Let’s start with those. 

Why?

 

[pantherclub]

Sure. 

1. Universal background checks. 

2. A ban on AR-15s

Let’s start with those. 

Late to this thread but this dude in va didn't use an ar15

 

[Politician Spock]

You know what else is weird? 

That nobody argues about how popcorn chicken isn’t sold in movie theaters.

Pretty sure teenagers would be wiping those things from one corner of the theater to the other. 

 

[KCitons]

Sure. 

1. Universal background checks. 

2. A ban on AR-15s

Let’s start with those. 

Specific to those two regulations, I cannot give a real life example.

 

[KCitons]

Don’t take the bait, Tim.

Some of you spend more time worrying about my conversations than you do the issue of gun control. 

 

[KCitons]

Late to this thread but this dude in va didn't use an ar15

Tim and I's conversation was not in regards to what weapon was used. He knows it wasn't an AR15 that was used. 

 

[pantherclub]

Tim and I's conversation was not in regards to what weapon was used. He knows it wasn't an AR15 that was used. 

Gotcha.  I havent read back to see where it veered from VA to AR15.  I just saw where tim is still wanting them banned.

 

[timschochet]

Gotcha.  I havent read back to see where it veered from VA to AR15.  I just saw where tim is still wanting them banned.

I do. My point was that because an AR-15 was not used in Virginia, lives were saved. If an AR-15 had been used there would have very likely been more casualties. So I think this strengthens the argument that they  should be banned: 

 

[timschochet]

Specific to those two regulations, I cannot give a real life example.

Thank you. But since you brought up the argument that regulations could cost lives I’m still not sure what you’re referring to. Is it gun free zones? Or something else? 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

To your first point, no not as many. An AR-15   kills more people. The evidence is that it has. 

To your second point, carrying a lot of weapons slows these guys down and makes them easier to stop. This also has been made evident. 

I do not think your conclusion necessarily follows.  You are not controlling for target numbers and thus opportunity.  In an office building where one has to go room to room it takes time to find targets, it is not as target rich an environment as say a movie theater, concert venue, or a night club, for instance where large numbers of folks are congregated into a relatively tight space.   With a semi automatic handgun in each hand a shooter could do a world of damage in a such target rich environments.    Still, in the end it is a bit of a moot point.  There are different and very effective killing tools for nearly any situation.  This is probably not a one platform problem, AR 15 or handgun.  This is a problem of conception, that folks need to die for the pain of an individual so that the individual's pain can be appreciated. When did we come to a state where this is how individuals share their pain?  Why do they think they will be taken seriously only if they act out in this manner? Me, I have no answers.

Certainly the AR 15 is popular because it is capable.   So too other weapon platforms. 

Had this most recent shooter killed a few more, just a few more, establishing a record, would that really change the talk form one weapon platform to another?  I think you are focusing on happenstance, a bit.   No problem, I get your point, AR 15 have been used in some famous shootings recently.  They will be again, I all likelihood.  So too handguns and probably shotguns as well.  I get the desire to legislate against depravity of heart and mind. It is a noble effort but one probably doomed to failure.  Still, the effort at doing something is, I suppose, an expression of hope, a desire for change, and those are necessary to effectuate change.  Keep up the fight but do not be rigid in solutions sought, do not confuse issues due to happenstance.

 

[KCitons]

Thank you. But since you brought up the argument that regulations could cost lives I’m still not sure what you’re referring to. Is it gun free zones? Or something else? 

Simple answer, you're idea of gun regulations are different from others here (or in the general public). I've stated that some of the proposed regulations could add more overall costs to the the right to bear arms. Essentially making gun ownership difficult for lower income people. 

Of course there are others that would like to see an all out ban of all guns. That number grows with each mass shooting. I also believe that number will continue to grow even if assault rifles are banned because assailants will turn to other (legal) weapons. The number of incidents may well remain the same, with perhaps the number of deaths fractionally being lowered. I don't believe that mass shooters set out to kill a specific number of people. They only set out to kill as many as they can, at a specific venue, with the tools they have available. If this wasn't the case, then they would choose much more target rich environments. 

I've said that it's the mental makeup of a shooter that leads to mass shootings. I've pointed to mental illness, but that may not be the right terminology. Perhaps addressing the behavior, instead of the gun, will have a greater effect on reducing mass shooting incidents. 

 

[KCitons]

I do. My point was that because an AR-15 was not used in Virginia, lives were saved. If an AR-15 had been used there would have very likely been more casualties. So I think this strengthens the argument that they  should be banned: 

Isn't this refuted by the Virginia Tech shooting? Cho shot 49 people on campus with two semi-automatic pistols, killing 32 and wounding 17.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I do not think your conclusion necessarily follows.  You are not controlling for target numbers and thus opportunity.  In an office building where one has to go room to room it takes time to find targets, it is not as target rich an environment as say a movie theater, concert venue, or a night club, for instance.   With a semi automatic handgun in each hand a shooter could do a world of damage in a such target rich environments.    Still, in the end it is a bit of a moot point.  There are different and very effective killing tools for nearly any situation.  This is probably not a one platform problem, AR 15 or handgun.  This is a problem of conception, that folks need to die for the pain of an individual so that the individual's pain can be appreciated. When did we come to a state where this is how individuals share their pain?  Why do they think they will be taken seriously only if they act out in this manner? Me, I have no answers.

Certainly the AR 15 is popular because it is capable.   So too other weapon platforms. 

Had this most recent shooter killed a few more, just a few more, establishing a record, would that really change the talk form one weapon platform to another?  I think you are focusing on happenstance, a bit.   No problem, I get your point, AR 15 have been used in some famous shootings recently.  They will be again, I all likelihood.  So too handguns and probably shotguns as well.  I get the desire to legislate against depravity of heart and mind. It is a noble effort but one probably doomed to failure.  Still, the effort at doing something is, I suppose, an expression of hope, a desire for change, and those are necessary to effectuate change.  Keep up the fight but do not be rigid in solutions sought, do not confuse issues due to happenstance.

So much of this post makes sense, and it's a root cause of frustration for people on this topic.  

I get what you are saying about the different situations and it's probably not the best to focus on the handgun vs. AR 15.  BUT no matter how many times the SCs of the world post it, I won't be convinced that somebody could do the same amount of damage with a knife/baseball bat/katana blade as they will with a gun in these instances.  So for me, we do need to admit that guns are a problem.  If that's the case, then we probably need to find a way to have less of them, less access to them, something.  

The bolded is a huge problem too - like you, I have no answers.  I have posted a few times that these shooters have a pretty low rate of diagnosed mental illness.  So either: 1. they don't have mental illnesses, or 2.  Our system is so inept that a vast majority are falling through the cracks.    I have read in several articles that's not a mental illness, but more of a complete lack of anger control.  These people feel wronged in a huge way and somehow have no healthy outlet to take care of that anger.  This is also a male problem since we don't see women shooting up groups of people.  Combining all that with our media coverage - I am sure there is a bit in there about going out with all this coverage and people knowing who they are after the fact.  

Not sure where that leaves us (as I am admittedly rambling right now) besides me thinking that this is way too complicated to address with one solution and should be attacked a few ways - especially when we talk about gun violence in general, not just mass shootings.  

 

[KCitons]

As of the Virginia Beach shooting it was day 151 of the year and there had been 150 mass shootings.  

We have to talk about these things at some point.  

I think these stats need more explanation. 

I did some searching and found that, in addition to different terms for mass shootings, there are some that do/don't make the list. (UNCC shooting didn't make Mother Jones list, but did make it onto the Wikipedia list)

This article from Mother Jones shows that there were only 4 mass shooting incidents in 2019. 

Wikipedia shows that there were a lot more. (probably 150, I didn't count them). From that site:

There are many definitions of a mass shooting:

Mass Shooting Tracker: 4+ shot in one incident, at one location, at roughly the same time.[4]

Gun Violence Archive: 4+ shot in one incident, excluding the perpetrator(s), at one location, at roughly the same time.[5]

Vox: 4+ shot in one incident, excluding the perpetrator(s), at one location, at roughly the same time.[6][7]

USA Today: 4+ shot and killed in one incident, at one location, at roughly the same time (same as the FBI's "mass killing" definition).[8]

Mother Jones: 3+ shot and killed in one incident, excluding the perpetrator(s), at a public place, excluding gang-related killings.[9]

The Washington Post: 4+ shot and killed in one incident, excluding the perpetrator(s), at a public place, excluding gang-related killings.[10]

When you look at the Wikipedia list, it appears that a good portion of those shootings could be gang related. Are proposed gun regulations going to do anything to reduce those deaths? 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

So much of this post makes sense, and it's a root cause of frustration for people on this topic.  

I get what you are saying about the different situations and it's probably not the best to focus on the handgun vs. AR 15.  BUT no matter how many times the SCs of the world post it, I won't be convinced that somebody could do the same amount of damage with a knife/baseball bat/katana blade as they will with a gun in these instances.  So for me, we do need to admit that guns are a problem.  If that's the case, then we probably need to find a way to have less of them, less access to them, something.  

The bolded is a huge problem too - like you, I have no answers.  I have posted a few times that these shooters have a pretty low rate of diagnosed mental illness.  So either: 1. they don't have mental illnesses, or 2.  Our system is so inept that a vast majority are falling through the cracks.    I have read in several articles that's not a mental illness, but more of a complete lack of anger control.  These people feel wronged in a huge way and somehow have no healthy outlet to take care of that anger.  This is also a male problem since we don't see women shooting up groups of people.  Combining all that with our media coverage - I am sure there is a bit in there about going out with all this coverage and people knowing who they are after the fact.  

Not sure where that leaves us (as I am admittedly rambling right now) besides me thinking that this is way too complicated to address with one solution and should be attacked a few ways - especially when we talk about gun violence in general, not just mass shootings.  

Well guns are certainly a more efficient tool for killing than bladed weapons or bludgeons.  Are they the most efficient means for killing persons in buildings, maybe not.  There may be better tools as we saw in the Oklahoma City bombing or the twin towers.    Gas and fire are very efficient, particularly if the egress is blocked or locked with debris or locks. I just think focusing on one weapon platform is distracting the debate.  When both "A" and "Not A" inexorably lead to "B" as is Tim's current stance I don't think it offers anything other than distraction.  

 

[timschochet]

Well guns are certainly a more efficient tool for killing than bladed weapons or bludgeons.  Are the most efficient means for killing persons in buildings, maybe not.  There may be better tools as we saw in the Oklahoma City bombing or the twin towers.    Gas and fire are very efficient, particularly if the egress is blocked or locked with debris or locks. I just think focusing on one weapon platform is distracting the debate.  When both "A" and "Not A" inexorably lead to "B" as is Tim's current stance I don't think it offers anything other than distraction.  

Obviously I strongly disagree, and I think the facts (and simple reasoning) bear me out. Most of these crazy people are not capable of hijacking airplanes, or making large bombs and setting them off. They are capable of buying guns and loading them and firing, and it’s quite easy for them to obtain those guns. Of these guns, the AR-15 seems to be the weapon of choice, and in a crowd it is easier to kill more people with it than with a handgun. These are not “distractions”.

 

[timschochet]

Isn't this refuted by the Virginia Tech shooting? Cho shot 49 people on campus with two semi-automatic pistols, killing 32 and wounding 17.

I don’t think so, no. It seems to me that if Cho had an AR-15 instead he would have, in the same time span, shot and killed even more people. He also might have been harder to stop. 

As someone pointed out previously, there is a reason that we give our military AR-15s and not pistols. It’s a more effective weapon. Its not meant for civilian use and there is no reason for a civilian to own one. 

 

[KCitons]

So much of this post makes sense, and it's a root cause of frustration for people on this topic.  

I get what you are saying about the different situations and it's probably not the best to focus on the handgun vs. AR 15.  BUT no matter how many times the SCs of the world post it, I won't be convinced that somebody could do the same amount of damage with a knife/baseball bat/katana blade as they will with a gun in these instances.  So for me, we do need to admit that guns are a problem.  If that's the case, then we probably need to find a way to have less of them, less access to them, something.  

The bolded is a huge problem too - like you, I have no answers.  I have posted a few times that these shooters have a pretty low rate of diagnosed mental illness.  So either: 1. they don't have mental illnesses, or 2.  Our system is so inept that a vast majority are falling through the cracks.    I have read in several articles that's not a mental illness, but more of a complete lack of anger control.  These people feel wronged in a huge way and somehow have no healthy outlet to take care of that anger.  This is also a male problem since we don't see women shooting up groups of people.  Combining all that with our media coverage - I am sure there is a bit in there about going out with all this coverage and people knowing who they are after the fact.  

Not sure where that leaves us (as I am admittedly rambling right now) besides me thinking that this is way too complicated to address with one solution and should be attacked a few ways - especially when we talk about gun violence in general, not just mass shootings.  

This is a taking the path of least resistance. (if that's possible with the gun culture in this country). As horrifying as a mass shooting event is, is it more horrifying than some of the other events that fill the other pages of the national newspapers? 

Man charged in murder of 7-year-old son whose body was found encased in concrete

Believe it or not, this isn't the first time a father tried to hide a child's body in concrete. 

Every day there are examples of people doing horrific things to other people. Many of them have no guns involved at all. The only common denominator is the perpetrators disregard for other people. (sometimes even their own flesh and blood).

This was the second post I made in this thread. I think it still addresses the fundamental problem.

Honestly, I don't think it matters. Things in this country are bad simply because people don't care for one another. We can't solve an ongoing drug crisis even though we have laws. We can't feed the hungry, even though millions of restaurants and individuals throw away tons of perfectly good food every day. We can't shelter the homeless, yet the means to create simple structures are easily attainable. We can't care for our sick because of rising healthcare costs. We ignore our aging population and threaten to strip the benefits they worked so hard for and rightly deserve. 

You can write, change and attempt to enforce whatever laws you want. In the end, the people of this country will ignore them for their own benefit. It's only when faced with tragedy that we attempt to support each other. And then, it's only for a brief moment. We have too much, yet we are always trying to obtain more. At whatever cost. And from whoever has it. 

All empires fall eventually. It's not if, it's when. Often times the cause is not external, but internal. Until everyone does the right thing, not because of laws but because it's the right thing to do, we will continue on a downward spiral.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Obviously I strongly disagree, and I think the facts (and simple reasoning) bear me out. Most of these crazy people are not capable of hijacking airplanes, or making large bombs and setting them off. They are capable of buying guns and loading them and firing, and it’s quite easy for them to obtain those guns. Of these guns, the AR-15 seems to be the weapon of choice, and in a crowd it is easier to kill more people with it than with a handgun. These are not “distractions”.

One does not have to steal a plane to deliver gas to a building.  Also, your supposition about the AR 15 is supposition alone, based upon cherry picked incidents.  Handguns are very efficient in close quarters against defenseless folks.  You have some nearly magical thinking about the capabilities of an AR 15 and lack some about the capabilities of handguns.  That's fine, many do.