Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread 2

[CliffFletcher]

I love how skepticism and empirical facts are excellent things when employed to champion our own beliefs, but tone-deaf and despicable when used to challenge them.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Median household income is more like $60,000, which would be a more appropriate number to use. I don't really understand that point though. The mass school shootings tend to be at suburban middle or upper middle class schools. Individual hand gun type shootings are more likely at lower income schools.

That just reinforces my belief that these shootings get a disproportionately high amount of coverage and sensationalism from cable news. That leads to people being more afraid of something that is unlikely to happen. I also think that the sensational media coverage leads to more of these events happening.

For the record, I'm perfectly ok with banning and removing any and all guns. I just think public policy should be about making a real difference to people's safety and not reacting to what gets the most coverage on the news.

The median household income being $60k means that both parents make $30k. Right in that 83%. Which means that most sane parents are terrified of their children dying at school.

Rifle massacres occur with frequency in exactly one first world country. That they happen at all is the problem. It is not the fault of media coverage - they cover these things because they're ####ed up and shouldn't be happening. There used to be an assault weapons ban. This didn't happen every week.

It's been 20 years since Columbine. It's been seven since Sandy Hook. Pulse, Parkland, Vegas, Aurora, Charleston, El Paso. Massacres in elementary schools, high schools, nightclubs, country music concerts, Batman movies, church prayer groups, and Wal Marts.

58 people wouldn't have died at a Jason Aldean concert because of a handgun fired from a hotel window. Stopping, or at the very least controlling, semi automatic rifle sales all but eliminates rifle massacres. That's a win.

[icecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I love how skepticism and empirical facts are excellent things when employed to champion our own beliefs, but tone-deaf and despicable when used to challenge them.

Yeah it's kinda a lot like when I'd bring up different articles and statistics on the topic of racism and you'd find several inventive ways to change the subject.

[CaptainCrunch]

I get your point, and I agree with it to an extent, but stating that controlling or stopping semi-automatic rifle sales all but eliminates rifle massacres is something that I don't believe is true.


These people are determined to mass massacre for whatever their demented reason, whether politically, racially, or anger based reasons. They won't stop.


If you put a stop to so called legal sales, all you're doing is driving it underground, people won't stop searching for and buying weapons, and its a huge dollar business especially for example in China where manufacture of these types of weapons is linked tightly to the government and a big source of cash. There are other nations with arms factors that participate in the black market.


All you're going to do with a ban is create a really unregulated market place. You're going to have to massively increase the ability to do inspections at the mexican border and on the east and west coast where hundreds of thousands of everything from freighters to personal vessels arrive.


Its the same idea as the war on drugs, just because you make something illegal doesn't make it go away, and the private concerns are smarter and more concerned with keeping their sales undetected then what happens in the legit market.


A person that's that determined to kill is going to find other methods, we might reduce the number of school shootings, but these people will probably become amateur chemists, or other methods ie sniping with a hunting rifle, using pistols and a more confined space, whatever.


Look I'm all for banning these type of rifles, I think I've demonstrated that here in the past, that I'm a confusing mess on this issue, I'm ex military, I've shot in the past and really enjoyed it, but I don't see the need for these rifles, and think that they're the unlimate enabler for the crazy, the angry, the ignored and the nut bar groups out there.


If you want to get rid of these weapons you have to.


1) Sure ban the sale of them
2) Because they are banned for sale, you're going to have to spend a lot of money encouraging people to hand in what they've got.
3) Ban personal sales, and make the punishment for doing it really harsh
4) Up street enforcement, because frankly you ban these weapons and the value of them goes through the roof, so thefts will increase
5) Spend massive amounts of money on border and port security
6) Find a way to press other countries not to control the flow of their semi-automatic arms to the States.
7) To me, up the punishment for gun crimes of any type from not securing properly, to use of these weapons.


This at this point where guns are heavily entangled in the American ethos the formula of ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons = elimination of rifle massacres is a formula that I don't believe is true. For a time, you might get that, but like jurrasic park, murderers will find a way.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I love how skepticism and empirical facts are excellent things when employed to champion our own beliefs, but tone-deaf and despicable when used to challenge them.

Here are our country's worst mass shootings over the past 30 years.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile..../idUSKBN1KV2BO

July 22, 2018, Toronto. 2 dead, 13 wounded, shooter killed himself.

January 29, 2017, Quebec City Mosque attack. 6 dead, 5 wounded.

January 22, 2016, La Loche. 4 dead, seven wounded.

December 29, 2014, Edmonton. 8 dead, shooter killed himself.

June 2014, Moncton. 3 RCMP murdered in Cold blood, 2 wounded.

July 2012, Toronto. 2 dead 23 wounded in shootout between rival gangs.

September, 2006, Montreal. Dawson College, 1 dead 19 wounded. Shooter killed himself.

March, 2004, Mayerthorpe. 4 RCMP killed while attempting to reposses property. Shooter killed himself.

April, 1999, Ottawa. 4 dead, 2 wounded, shooter killed himself.

April 1996, Vernon. 9 dead, 2 wounded, shooter killed himself.

August, 1992, Montreal. Concordia professor murders 4, wounds 1, shooter killed himself.

December 1989, Montreal. Ecole Polytechnique. 14 dead, 13 wounded, shooter killed himself.

One event in 30 years with a double digit body count. There is a reason for that.

[Azure]

I think you are taking an overly simplistic view on the issue by reducing it to simply 'too many guns.'

If we banned assault rifles tomorrow it wouldn't change anything.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

The median household income being $60k means that both parents make $30k. Right in that 83%. Which means that most sane parents are terrified of their children dying at school.

Come on. None of that makes any sense and you are just making things up. Your 83% number is based on average household income <30k, not individual income. Even then, 83% are not terrified. 46% are somewhat concerned, and 36% are very worried. None of that suggests that most sane parents are terrified of their kids dying at school.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I get your point, and I agree with it to an extent, but stating that controlling or stopping semi-automatic rifle sales all but eliminates rifle massacres is something that I don't believe is true.


These people are determined to mass massacre for whatever their demented reason, whether politically, racially, or anger based reasons. They won't stop.

This at this point where guns are heavily entangled in the American ethos the formula of ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons = elimination of rifle massacres is a formula that I don't believe is true. For a time, you might get that, but like jurrasic park, murderers will find a way.

Some won't stop. Lots will. These kids murdering their classmates can't function in a high school setting without snapping and going on a rampage. These are not kids who handle adversity well. You put a few obstacles in their way, it's going to stop them.

Say only 100 people die per year in these massacres instead of 250. Is that not a monumental gain? People die every day, but there's no excuse to make mass murder as easy as possible.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

The point being that everyone is saying that the whole US is a terribly scary place to live when the country as a whole is about the same as Edmonton or Calgary in terms of likelihood to die by homicide of any kind.

except when you actually compare the homicide rate for Calgary, 2.07 per 100,000 in 2018, it would rank as the 8th lowest city on the FBI's 2017 analysis of the 100 most dangerous Cities in the US, with Gilbert Arizona

As a nation as a whole, Canada's 1.8 per capita rank would compare to the 4th lowest city in the US, just ahead of Boise Idaho

Canada's "murder capital" of Winnipeg at 3.69, lands it just ahead of Portland, Oregon as the 23rd lowest city out of 100

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._by_crime_rate

in order for Calgary to be "about the same" as the US, its per capita rate would have to jump to 4.9 from 2.07, which in real terms means the 31 homicides calgary had in 2018 would have to increase to 74

you think people would be feeling safe in calgary is there were 74 homicides per year?
.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Come on. None of that makes any sense and you are just making things up. Your 83% number is based on average household income <30k, not individual income. Even then, 83% are not terrified. 46% are somewhat concerned, and 36% are very worried. None of that suggests that most sane parents are terrified of their kids dying at school.

If 36% of any demographic is 'very worried' about their children dying in school, that is an enormous red flag. None of the demographics listed present a majority who are unconcerned about this.

Kids shouldn't be dying at school. I don't know when this became a controversial stance.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Some won't stop. Lots will. These kids murdering their classmates can't function in a high school setting without snapping and going on a rampage. These are not kids who handle adversity well. You put a few obstacles in their way, it's going to stop them.

Say only 100 people die per year in these massacres instead of 250. Is that not a monumental gain? People die every day, but there's no excuse to make mass murder as easy as possible.

250? The most that have died in one year is 117. Typically it is less than 100, and often less than 50.
https://time.com/4965022/deadliest-m...ng-us-history/

How many mass shootings by high school students using assault rifles have there been in the US? You make it sound like it happens all the time. Has it happened more than 2 or 3 times ever?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Some won't stop. Lots will. These kids murdering their classmates can't function in a high school setting without snapping and going on a rampage. These are not kids who handle adversity well. You put a few obstacles in their way, it's going to stop them.

Say only 100 people die per year in these massacres instead of 250. Is that not a monumental gain? People die every day, but there's no excuse to make mass murder as easy as possible.

I get what you're saying, but I would really believe that any downturn in the stats would be temporary at best, and you would get a large uptick eventually as an underground market is established. And it will lead to worse weapons becoming available.


Just banning the sale of semi-automatic weapons is not going to solve the problem. I want the banning to happen, but honestly its one step in many and I doubt American's will have the stomach forth the costs of it.


Its America, its a gun culture, and underground market will be a huge money maker for the cartels if they choose to do it. What stops that from happening full force is that its fairly easy to buy these weapons in a legal market.


As a side note, I was in Toronto this week on business and a lot of talk is around not the US mass shootings but the gun violence in Toronto right now including the 17 shootings over the weekend a couple of weeks ago.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think you are taking an overly simplistic view on the issue by reducing it to simply 'too many guns.'

If we banned assault rifles tomorrow it wouldn't change anything.

Then let's do it and find out. If you're right, it doesn't matter. If you're wrong, we reduce the number of corpses. Seems like a break even or win situation.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

250? The most that have died in one year is 117. Typically it is less than 100, and often less than 50.
https://time.com/4965022/deadliest-m...ng-us-history/

How many mass shootings by high school students using assault rifles have there been in the US? You make it sound like it happens all the time. Has it happened more than 2 or 3 times ever?

Buddy, I'm just going off your 250 rifle deaths stat you posted a few pages back.

The AR specifically was used in Sandy Hook, Aurora, Pulse, Parkland, San Bernardino, Vegas, basically enough places to know it's a public menace and should not be sold to just anyone.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Then let's do it and find out. If you're right, it doesn't matter. If you're wrong, we reduce the number of corpses. Seems like a break even or win situation.

I think it is the sexy solution here. And for most people the easiest because they can't possibly fathom why someone would want to own an assault rifle.

Perhaps we should look at the issue in a little more detail? Because 'guns' are not the problem. People just like throwing labels around and this is the easiest one to label. 99.9% of gun owners in the US who never commit a crime. Bernie Sanders himself said that. So why reduce the issue to something so simplistic?

I think a lot of people who be shocked if they knew what kind of guns you can own in Canada with a non-restricted license. And lack of magazine capacity, no full auto, etc, etc who not stop anyone from shooting a bunch of people in a crowd if they knew how to operate a gun half decently.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

Buddy, I'm just going off your 250 rifle deaths stat you posted a few pages back.

The AR specifically was used in Sandy Hook, Aurora, Pulse, Parkland, San Bernardino, Vegas, basically enough places to know it's a public menace and should not be sold to just anyone.

So one high school student bought an AR to shoot up his school, ever. You tried to make a point that high school students snapping and having access to assault rifles is a big problem in the US and if you made it harder for them to acquire one, it would save hundreds of lives per year. In actuality, you might have prevented one such instance in the last 30 years if the law was effective.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

So one high school student bought an AR to shoot up his school, ever. You tried to make a point that high school students snapping and having access to assault rifles is a big problem in the US and if you made it harder for them to acquire one, it would save hundreds of lives per year. In actuality, you might have prevented one such instance in the last 30 years if the law was effective.

Parkland was an AR, Newtown was a Bushmaster XM15 E2S. Google those guns and look at them side by side, and see if you can tell which is which. A reasonable society would look at the corpses of 20 pre-teens and take that as reason enough to stop selling these products. I don't know why you would argue that preventing Newtown or Parkland, or the next one, or the next one, is not worth the effort.

This is the mass shooting thread. Not the school shooting thread. Mass shootings are a direct result of widespread access to weapons that should be much more restricted. It may be a difficult road to hoe, but that's the solution. You have to control who gets their hands on these weapons, or you end up with modern day America.

It doesn't happen here. It's not to say it can't, but it doesn't. And if/when a slaughter takes place in Canada using an AR 15 or similar weapon, those weapons will be banned en masse overnight and there will not be a struggle.

It's time to stop treating the talking points of a Russian-funded white nationalists as actual fact. Every piece of evidence indicates a huge problem that is having an extremely negative impact on the populace. As the always enraging Onion headline says, "'No Way to Prevent This' Says Only Nation where this Regularly Happens".

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I get what you're saying, but I would really believe that any downturn in the stats would be temporary at best, and you would get a large uptick eventually as an underground market is established. And it will lead to worse weapons becoming available.


Just banning the sale of semi-automatic weapons is not going to solve the problem. I want the banning to happen, but honestly its one step in many and I doubt American's will have the stomach forth the costs of it.


Its America, its a gun culture, and underground market will be a huge money maker for the cartels if they choose to do it. What stops that from happening full force is that its fairly easy to buy these weapons in a legal market.


As a side note, I was in Toronto this week on business and a lot of talk is around not the US mass shootings but the gun violence in Toronto right now including the 17 shootings over the weekend a couple of weeks ago.

Toronto does have a major issue: it is rife with black market guns, more often than not, coming in from the US... but they also know that guns are a big issue and are actively trying to ban guns in metro toronto, not trying to suggest that more guns would help, nor that 'guns don't kill people; people kill people"

i would agree that it is unlikely that there would be any kind of ban on AR style weapons... even though there was once a ban put into effect, the US, especially politically, is very very different than it was in 1994...

universal background checks, eliminating the ability for the mentally unstable to purchase firearms and limiting extended magazines is probably the upper limit of what would get passed with bipartisan support.

while this may only seem like an incremental change, which pro gun lobbyists would argue, and that "it won't make a difference", i think one really needs to dive into that calculus.

is reducing the body count by one in a mass shooting incident worth it? because the shooter only had the capacity to fire 10 shots before having to reload? is giving people a couple of seconds to run away worth it while the shooter swaps out magazines? logistically, if a shooter needs to haul around 10 clips rather than 2 to a target is that inconvenience worth it? Would it give people a slightly higher chance of escaping?

if universal background checks prevented one mass shooting event per year, is it worth it?

for me, the answer is pretty obvious

[bob-loblaw]

I read the summary above about mass shootings in Canada. Has there been one in a school in Canada, other than colleges/universities?

[CaptainCrunch]

I am all for the universal background check, but it has to be universal with no loop holes. I am all for limiting the size of magazines, I don't see why anyone would need more then a 5 round magazine maximum for a civilian weapon. Personally I would prefer that all weapons are single shot and the reloading procedure requires the shooter to sing "I'm a little teapot" while dancing the hokey pokey.