Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[Resolute 14]

As far as the FBI definition vs. shooting tracker definition goes, the problem is actually with the media being lazy.

The FBI defines a mass killing as one with four or more fatalities. The media (and therefore the pro-murder gun nuts) mistakenly state this as being synonymous with mass shootings. They are not the same.

The shooting tracker actually takes the FBI's definition for mass killings and uses it to define mass shootings - any incident in which four people are shot. The only reason why someone would suggest using the FBI's numbers to track shootings rather than just killings is to obfuscate.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

the whole mass shooting, AR 15 thing is a bit of a canard though, the vast majority of Americans are killed with a hand gun by their drunk/ depressed recently dumped husband boyfriend etc.

Nothing will alter this short of a massive reduction of guns, all guns, in the country.

true, but, would have Holmes and Lanza done as much damage with a handgun?

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Aside from killing and compensating for lack of something else, what purpose do high powered high capacity rifles have?

Define "High Powered" I see this thrown around a lot and do often wonder what the standard is.

I think your issue is more with rate of fire than how powerful the shot is.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Please explain how a silencer is a piece of safety equipment.

It makes the report a bit quieter thus saving the shooters ears some wear and tear. And it's really a suppressor, nothing eliminates the bang from any firearm.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

It makes the report a bit quieter thus saving the shooters ears some wear and tear.

Spoiler!

Care to try again?

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Care to try again?

Nope. I didn't say it was my reason, that's the reason I've been given.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Nope. I didn't say it was my reason, that's the reason I've been given.

Seems like a BS reason to me.


I also wonder, but really don't know, do silencers affect the performance of a weapon?

[Coach]

But I want to feel like James Bond, or Leo in Inception.

How can I look cool *cough cough* properly exercise my god-given right to shoot at nothing in sort of quiet *cough cough* with my gun if I have to wear those stupid ear muffs?

The Forefathers ain't wearin no ear muffs in all dem history books. Pretty sure Jesus armed his apostles with only the very best in modern warfare gear in the interest of fostering peace.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Seems like a BS reason to me.

To you maybe, but to people who shoot hundreds of rounds per week maybe not.

Hunters may also like them as they aren't likely wearing muffs.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

To you maybe, but to people who shoot hundreds of rounds per week maybe not.

Hunters may also like them as they aren't likely wearing muffs.

Who is putting 100's of rounds down range a week?


In another like I put a lot of rounds down range wearing and not wearing "ear muff"

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Who is putting 100's of rounds down range a week?


In another like I put a lot of rounds down range wearing and not wearing "ear muff"

Lots of people. C'mon, as a previous member of the armed forces, you should know it doesn't take long to burn through ammunition. I go to the range a few times per month. I take 2 small boxes of ammunition. Each box hold 100 rounds. Each magazine takes 10 rounds. Shoot 10 magazines and there is 100 rounds. And that's just one firearm.

Not sure I'm understanding your 2nd sentence.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Lots of people. C'mon, as a previous member of the armed forces, you should know it doesn't take long to burn through ammunition. I go to the range a few times per month. I take 2 small boxes of ammunition. Each box hold 100 rounds. Each magazine takes 10 rounds. Shoot 10 magazines and there is 100 rounds. And that's just one firearm.

I guess I have trouble putting myself in the mind of a shooter.


I still don't buy that a suppressor is a piece of safety equipment. I think you would have a better time selling it as a "good neighbor" attachment than safety.

But we digress.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I think you would have a better time selling it as a "good neighbor" attachment than safety.

Which is another point I was going to raise but figured I'd be scoffed at so didn't bother.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Who is putting 100's of rounds down range a week?

In another like I put a lot of rounds down range wearing and not wearing "ear muff"

Were those rounds indoors or outdoors? Go shoot a few hundred rounds from a compensated .223 or .308 in a range and you'll want more than top of the line electronic muffs, even standing near it, it's a big hit on the ears. How many people in the CF now have irreversible hearing damage from shooting unprotected?

A range trip for a lot of people, especially people practicing for competitions or looking to improve their skills, is easily hundreds of rounds.

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Please explain how a silencer is a piece of safety equipment.

This is just my personal feeling, and I'm aware this is not held by a great many people. But I can't think of a single non-hunting situation where a civilian needs to be in possession of a firearm.

The sound produced by a gunshot is instantly damaging to hearing if nothing is used to dampen the sound. This is why most who shoot will use hearing protection. A suppressor will further drop the noise of the gunshot ~30db, even further out of the instantly damaging zone. Some of the countries with firearms laws that surpass Canada's recognize how a suppressor can benefit those participating in and observing the shooting sports. Unlike the movies, a suppressed firearm is still around 130db when fired.

As to your second point. There are many uses for civilian owned firearms outside hunting and it's a multi-billion dollar industry that trickles down to multiple areas of the economy. You have recreational target shooters, competition shooters such a IPSC or IDPA, defense of life, collecting, pest/predator control etc..., all of which are legal and allowed uses. Aside from directly purchasing firearms and ammunition, there are firearm accessories, clothing, hotel costs, flight costs, people who work in gun stores, organize events, conduct training, property taxes paid to municipalities, money paid to local contractors for renos.

Originally Posted by DuffMan

It improves safety for anyone on the wrong end of a mass shooting.

How does inserting a (easily drilled out) rivet into the side of a magazine improve safety? The person committing the crime is already breaking the law, they are not going to stop short of turning a pinned mag into a prohibited device.

Assuming they do keep the rivet for some reason, you're not accounting for their ability to change magazines (about 1 second) or the fact that they might bring additional magazines with them.

Limiting magazine capacity is one of the laws that sounds great to anyone who has no experience with firearms, but really does absolutely nothing for safety.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Who is putting 100's of rounds down range a week?

American pre-teens, for one

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Wait don't lose focus.


Can you explain why you don't want to use the Shooting Tracker definition of a mass shooting?

You still haven't answered this.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

s. How many people in the CF now have irreversible hearing damage from shooting unprotected?

Tracks ####ed me ears.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

You still haven't answered this.

I think each of the two has their place. Shooting tracker is a good indicator of the illegal use of firearms in the commission of violent crimes. The FBI tracks mass killings.

Two different methods to track two different stats. Which is why both should be presented together and the difference identified.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

I think each of the two has their place. Shooting tracker is a good indicator of the illegal use of firearms in the commission of violent crimes. The FBI tracks mass killings.

Two different methods to track two different stats. Which is why both should be presented together and the difference identified.

I would suggest the shootings is the more damning approach when it comes to the pro-gun lobby, which it why you see individuals say:

federal statistics and definitions should take precedence over a crowd sourced site that has decided on their own definition.

[afc wimbledon]

[QUOTE=GoinAllTheWay;5488519]Nope. I didn't say it was my reason, that's the reason I've been given.[/QUOTE
Nm