Firearm Expertise

[NightL]

you’re Anti-Constitution,

buy yourself an island, declare it is the year 1787 then discard every bit of technology invented from that time forward

 

[NightL]

America is free and not a penile colony.

there are indeed a lot of penises in Australia, but more dicks in America.

When Australia opens its borders as America does

...yet your mass murderers are baiscally home-grown white guys aren't they.

Is Australia totally crime free?

The comparative statics are freely available, Google is your friend.

Certainly some impressive baseball bats over there, being deadly as an AR-15 and all.

Still waiting on the answer to - how many recorded cases have there been of a vigilante taking out a "baddie" with an open carry military style weapon? Apparently that is why they are so necessary according to the gun glee & glorification club.

 

[SissySalina]

Sorry NightL, you make a good politician, you have not answered question only tried to point to something different.
And yes, this sissy is familiar with Ausi love of knives.
sissy will not get dragged down to your level but it seems to this lowly sissy when things start going wrong all over the world those self righteous folks from other countries look to America to pull their butts out of the fire.
Have a nice day.

 

[Bramblethorn]

OTCurve, this list has been doing the social media rounds - seems a reasonable place to start.

14 day waiting periods
No sales by private owners
No sales at gun shows
10 rounds magazine limit
No bump stocks
No cranks
Licenses for all arms
Child lock requirements
Minimum age of purchase at 21
Assault rifle ban
Universal background checks
Domestic violence ban​

Something along those lines, yeah (modulo argument about definition of "assault rifle"). Including a ban on semi-auto and pump-action longarms. I'm under no illusions that this would be an easy thing to achieve in the USA, but times change and what one generation takes for granted may be abandoned by the next.

Obviously "Domestic violence ban" is banning the sale of weapons to anyone who has been found guilty of domestic violence.

Uh huh. Noting that a history of DV seems to be the second-most common feature on shooters' profiles (the most-common being "male", but I'm not advocating profiling people on that).

I have asked this question before - how many recorded cases have there been of a vigilante taking out a "baddie" with an open carry military style weapon?

Possibly the Sutherland Springs church shooting last year. GGWAG injured the shooter, who eventually killed himself. But he'd already killed 26 people and was on his way out of the church, which may have been why the GGWAG was able to engage.

If there are professional shooters who control feral animals requiring semi automatics, then they would undergo strict licensing and regulation.

That issue came up during discussion about the Australian gun laws; as I recall, most professional shooters were of the opinion that anybody who couldn't reliably kill an animal with one shot should find a different line of work.

Sorry NightL but unlike Australia (which is a country that sissy likes) America is free and not a penile colony.

Um... you really might want to learn a bit more about your own country's history before you try that particular line.

Britain shipped roughly fifty thousand convicts to America in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. One of the biggest penal colonies in America was Virginia, which received more than twenty thousand British convicts during the eighteenth century.

But surely you know this - I understand you're from Virginia?

Me, I live in the state of Victoria, which was never a penal colony at any period in history. So maybe I'm the one who ought to be making the convict cracks

When Australia opens its borders as America does then you may have something to talk about.

Australia has roughly triple the USA's migration rate.

As of 2015, 28.2% of people living in Australia were born overseas (including me); that's more than double the US figure of 13.7%.

I'm not really sure what borders have to do with this particular topic - like NightL pointed out, most shooters are home-grown - but it always baffles me that Americans think of the USA as a high-migration country.

Australia is a very selective country and can afford such other niceties'. But people will be people and kill each other with what ever the have and people that want some thing will still take them anyway they can. Is Australia totally crime free?

Nope! We still have people trying to kill one another now and then, and sometimes they succeed. But it's harder to kill lots of people with a knife or a car than it is with a gun.

Here's a list of massacres in Australian history. Between 1980 and 1996 (the Port Arthur massacre) there were 112 people killed in massacres; that's about 4 deaths per 100k population per year.

From 1997 to 2017, there were a total of 79 people killed in massacres - taking population increase into account, that's about 1.8 per 100k per year, so less than half of the death rate before the gun laws changed.

(I always find it a little weird when people try the "if you take away guns the murderers will just use knives" argument, while simultaneously insisting that only a gun will do for self-defence.)

 

[NightL]

those self righteous folks from other countries look to America to pull their butts out of the fire.

I see a lot of Australia going to assist USA for the fracas they involve themselves in...

I wonder if "self righteous" Australia has ever asked at all for hot butt assistance?

 

[Bramblethorn]

And yes, this sissy is familiar with Ausi love of knives.

Aussie love of... what?

*bewildered look*

Please tell me you're not relying on "Crocodile Dundee" for your information about Australia?

sissy will not get dragged down to your level but it seems to this lowly sissy when things start going wrong all over the world those self righteous folks from other countries look to America to pull their butts out of the fire.

This is, uh, not how the rest of the world sees it. Not remotely. From other countries' perspective it's usually more like "you started a fire and now you want a medal for putting half of it out?"

 

[OTCurve]

NightL and Bramblethorn, I would like to thank both of you for revealing exactly to what ends you would both go to solve this problem.

Bans, ignore the Constitution and incredible contempt for those who don't agree with you.

That doesn't sound like a tyrannical solution at all.

 

[NightL]

The Names and Faces of the Florida School Shooting Victims
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/us/florida-school-victims.html

what is your solution OTCurve?

 

[Emerson40]

Nope! We still have people trying to kill one another now and then, and sometimes they succeed. But it's harder to kill lots of people with a knife or a car than it is with a gun.

Here's a list of massacres in Australian history. Between 1980 and 1996 (the Port Arthur massacre) there were 112 people killed in massacres; that's about 4 deaths per 100k population per year.

From 1997 to 2017, there were a total of 79 people killed in massacres - taking population increase into account, that's about 1.8 per 100k per year, so less than half of the death rate before the gun laws changed.

The pew-pew partisans want to point at everything, anything, but their precious guns.

(I always find it a little weird when people try the "if you take away guns the murderers will just use knives" argument, while simultaneously insisting that only a gun will do for self-defence.)

That and the "well, you should ban cars too" nonsense.

Until one is able to kill almost 60 and wound around 500 innocent folks in 20 minutes from 400 yards away with a knife, you just sound asinine making fatuous collations like this.

 

[OTCurve]

The Names and Faces of the Florida School Shooting Victims
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/us/florida-school-victims.html

what is your solution OTCurve?

To start with, end this gun-free zone nonsense. Since it was enacted, over 90% of the mass shootings have occurred in these zones.

Second, enforce the laws that are on the books. Actually punish straw purchasers. No more pleading down/dismissing gun charges. You use a gun in the commission of a crime, you're gone. Not on paper, for real.

Third, get the FBI to actually do their job. They can follow ten Russians for years in regards to hypothetical collusion, but they cannot find a guy who was visited by cops 39 times, posted comments about wanting to be a professional school shooter and used his own name?

Fourth, fully examine the mental health aspect, not just for these criminals, but for all the people out there that need help. Many institutions were shut down in past years, and those people were essentially left to fend for themselves.

Fifth, get people into schools to take a look at our kids. If all one has to go on is the news, then schoolkids are easily offended, violent game playing, cyberbullying, Tide pod eating snowflakes. I think that might indicate a potential problem.

The change this culture has undergone in the past thirty years has been dramatic. From the isolationism brought on by social media (and not interacting with people in real life, see Japan for the extreme of this), the lack of strong parental guidance (teaching right versus wrong) and this overblown sense of coddling and entitlement (why do colleges need safe spaces?), the fact that things are breaking down should not come as a surprise.

Years ago one was able to walk into a hardware store and buy a gun, no check, nothing. Rifles hung in the rear windows of pickups everywhere in middle America, kids went hunting after school, people walked down streets with guns and nobody blinked. Also, almost no atrocities like we see now.

WHY are these kids shooting each other? NOT how, WHY? Anger, angst, can't handle rejection, got a bad grade, confusing video games with reality, or in some cases of mass shootings, ideological causes.

Lastly, the growing trend that speech you do not like equates to violence and response to speech you don't like with physical violence is okay. That is a very very dangerous trend and needs to stop.

I think that will do for starters.

 

[OTCurve]

That and the "well, you should ban cars too" nonsense.

Until one is able to kill almost 60 and wound around 500 innocent folks in 20 minutes from 400 yards away with a knife, you just sound asinine making fatuous collations like this.

Not with a knife, no.

From Wiki, "On the evening of 14 July 2016, a 19 tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds of people celebrating Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people[2] and the injury of 458 others."

Do you recall how long the actual attack was? According to one Reuters article, it was approximately fifteen minutes.

 

[coachdb18]

To start with, end this gun-free zone nonsense. Since it was enacted, over 90% of the mass shootings have occurred in these zones.

Second, enforce the laws that are on the books. Actually punish straw purchasers. No more pleading down/dismissing gun charges. You use a gun in the commission of a crime, you're gone. Not on paper, for real.

Third, get the FBI to actually do their job. They can follow ten Russians for years in regards to hypothetical collusion, but they cannot find a guy who was visited by cops 39 times, posted comments about wanting to be a professional school shooter and used his own name?

Fourth, fully examine the mental health aspect, not just for these criminals, but for all the people out there that need help. Many institutions were shut down in past years, and those people were essentially left to fend for themselves.

Fifth, get people into schools to take a look at our kids. If all one has to go on is the news, then schoolkids are easily offended, violent game playing, cyberbullying, Tide pod eating snowflakes. I think that might indicate a potential problem.

The change this culture has undergone in the past thirty years has been dramatic. From the isolationism brought on by social media (and not interacting with people in real life, see Japan for the extreme of this), the lack of strong parental guidance (teaching right versus wrong) and this overblown sense of coddling and entitlement (why do colleges need safe spaces?), the fact that things are breaking down should not come as a surprise.

Years ago one was able to walk into a hardware store and buy a gun, no check, nothing. Rifles hung in the rear windows of pickups everywhere in middle America, kids went hunting after school, people walked down streets with guns and nobody blinked. Also, almost no atrocities like we see now.

WHY are these kids shooting each other? NOT how, WHY? Anger, angst, can't handle rejection, got a bad grade, confusing video games with reality, or in some cases of mass shootings, ideological causes.

Lastly, the growing trend that speech you do not like equates to violence and response to speech you don't like with physical violence is okay. That is a very very dangerous trend and needs to stop.

I think that will do for starters.

Oh HELL yes! Thank you! I too remember putting my rifle (punched at Montgomery Ward with not even a serial number - still have it) in my school locker, and going bird hunting with friends in the woods behind the school when the school day ended. Liberals have destroyed these kids, the culture, and America. It hasn’t always been this way, and this changed legacy is a terrible loss to generations since.

 

[Bramblethorn]

NightL and Bramblethorn, I would like to thank both of you for revealing exactly to what ends you would both go to solve this problem.

Bans, ignore the Constitution and incredible contempt for those who don't agree with you.

At no point did I advocate "ignoring the Constitution", and I don't believe I ever expressed contempt for anybody in present company. But that can change very quickly if you keep on putting words in my mouth.

hint: think about the words "second amendment".

That doesn't sound like a tyrannical solution at all.

You know what's tyrannical? Surrounding school with razor-wire fences and armed guards. Kindergarteners being taught to yell and throw books at an attacker - not to stop him, not to save their own lives, but to draw out their deaths so their schoolmates have a few more seconds to get away. Hearing one of my friends say "at least my kids go to separate schools, so if there's a shooting I know I won't lose them both".

To start with, end this gun-free zone nonsense. Since it was enacted, over 90% of the mass shootings have occurred in these zones.

False. Most mass shootings in the USA (about 63%) take place in private homes, usually domestic violence related. You're probably referring to the research of John Lott, which only counts mass shootings that take place in public (thus excluding more than half of mass shootings right away), ignores shootings that took place as part of another crime (robberies gone wrong etc.), and which uses a rather bizarre definition of "gun-free zone" whereby Fort Hood - a military facility protected by armed military guards - is considered "gun-free".

The statistic also ignores the issue of cause and effect - in many cases gun-free zones are gun-free precisely because they tend to contain a large number of people, making them vulnerable to attack. Most mass murderers don't care if they get killed in the attack; they just want to go where the people are.

Second, enforce the laws that are on the books. Actually punish straw purchasers. No more pleading down/dismissing gun charges. You use a gun in the commission of a crime, you're gone. Not on paper, for real.

Fifth, get people into schools to take a look at our kids. If all one has to go on is the news, then schoolkids are easily offended, violent game playing, cyberbullying, Tide pod eating snowflakes. I think that might indicate a potential problem.

The change this culture has undergone in the past thirty years has been dramatic. From the isolationism brought on by social media (and not interacting with people in real life, see Japan for the extreme of this), the lack of strong parental guidance (teaching right versus wrong) and this overblown sense of coddling and entitlement (why do colleges need safe spaces?), the fact that things are breaking down should not come as a surprise.

Australia has the same video games, movies, TV, social media. So does Canada, so does the UK. None of these countries have the USA's epidemic of mass-murder. So, no, it's not that.

(Also, safe spaces have been around forever, just that back in my parents' day they tended to be for the benefit of white guys.)

WHY are these kids shooting each other? NOT how, WHY? Anger, angst, can't handle rejection, got a bad grade, confusing video games with reality, or in some cases of mass shootings, ideological causes.

FWIW, I actually agree with you on a lot of this. (I'm skeptical about the effects of video games). We certainly should tackle the "why". But that sort of change is slow, and kids go on dying.

Not with a knife, no.

From Wiki, "On the evening of 14 July 2016, a 19 tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds of people celebrating Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people[2] and the injury of 458 others."

Do you recall how long the actual attack was? According to one Reuters article, it was approximately fifteen minutes.

...meanwhile, in that same year the USA racked up more than seven times as many deaths in mass shootings. (606 by my count, but it'll vary a little depending on what sources you use.) Even adjusting per capita, one of the worst years in recent French history was less lethal than living in America.

If you want to average it over, say, the last ten years, France looks very safe by comparison to the USA.

Oh HELL yes! Thank you! I too remember putting my rifle (punched at Montgomery Ward with not even a serial number - still have it) in my school locker, and going bird hunting with friends in the woods behind the school when the school day ended. Liberals have destroyed these kids, the culture, and America. It hasn’t always been this way, and this changed legacy is a terrible loss to generations since.

If it's the liberals' fault, why do the more liberal Western countries have far fewer massacres?

 

[coachdb18]

At no point did I advocate "ignoring the Constitution", and I don't believe I ever expressed contempt for anybody in present company. But that can change very quickly if you keep on putting words in my mouth.

hint: think about the words "second amendment".



You know what's tyrannical? Surrounding school with razor-wire fences and armed guards. Kindergarteners being taught to yell and throw books at an attacker - not to stop him, not to save their own lives, but to draw out their deaths so their schoolmates have a few more seconds to get away. Hearing one of my friends say "at least my kids go to separate schools, so if there's a shooting I know I won't lose them both".



False. Most mass shootings in the USA (about 63%) take place in private homes, usually domestic violence related. You're probably referring to the research of John Lott, which only counts mass shootings that take place in public (thus excluding more than half of mass shootings right away), ignores shootings that took place as part of another crime (robberies gone wrong etc.), and which uses a rather bizarre definition of "gun-free zone" whereby Fort Hood - a military facility protected by armed military guards - is considered "gun-free".

The statistic also ignores the issue of cause and effect - in many cases gun-free zones are gun-free precisely because they tend to contain a large number of people, making them vulnerable to attack. Most mass murderers don't care if they get killed in the attack; they just want to go where the people are.





Australia has the same video games, movies, TV, social media. So does Canada, so does the UK. None of these countries have the USA's epidemic of mass-murder. So, no, it's not that.

(Also, safe spaces have been around forever, just that back in my parents' day they tended to be for the benefit of white guys.)



FWIW, I actually agree with you on a lot of this. (I'm skeptical about the effects of video games). We certainly should tackle the "why". But that sort of change is slow, and kids go on dying.



...meanwhile, in that same year the USA racked up more than seven times as many deaths in mass shootings. (606 by my count, but it'll vary a little depending on what sources you use.) Even adjusting per capita, one of the worst years in recent French history was less lethal than living in America.

If you want to average it over, say, the last ten years, France looks very safe by comparison to the USA.



If it's the liberals' fault, why do the more liberal Western countries have far fewer massacres?

When all else fails, manipulate the data! Just like Obama’s infamous employment stats that took out the long term unemployed whom the government said ‘was no longer looking’ *BULLSHIT*

 

[Bramblethorn]

When all else fails, manipulate the data! Just like Obama’s infamous employment stats that took out the long term unemployed whom the government said ‘was no longer looking’ *BULLSHIT*

I know some folk can't catch cold without blaming Obama, but this is getting a bit extreme. Just to be clear here, you're playing the Blame Obama card for something that was introduced long before he was born. What's next, are we going to blame him for the Great Depression?

Here's the current international standard method for measuring "unemployment":

The unemployed comprise all persons above a specified age who during the reference period were:

- without work, that is, were not in paid employment or self employment during the reference period;

- currently available for work, that is, were available for paid employment or self-employment during the reference period; and

- seeking work, that is, had taken specific steps in a specified recent period to seek paid employment or self-employment.

- International Labour Organization (ILO) Resolutions Concerning Economically Active Population, Employment, Unemployment and Underemployment Adopted by the 13th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, October 1982, para. 10.

That definition has been used by every US government since Reagan onwards, and by most non-US governments too. One of the reasons for adopting that standard is so governments can't fudge the figures by making up their own definition. It's not perfect, but it is at least objective and consistent. You can hold Obama's employment figures up against any US government of the last 36 years - and most non-US governments too - and know that you're comparing apples with apples.

That's the current standard, but older US methods also excluded non-seekers from the count. For example, here's a report published in 1944; if you read through it you'll find that the labor force is defined as "persons who were reported as at work, on public emergency work, seeking work, or as having a job during the week of March 24 to 30, 1940". If you were out of work and not looking for work, you weren't counted in the labour force, which meant you weren't considered "unemployed".

If you're curious about why these definitions exclude non-seekers, I'm happy to discuss that. I love facts and stats.

But if you're going to complain about "manipulating the data", you might be better off directing that at the guy whose numbers you were citing, who chose to exclude 60% of mass shooting incidents from his data on mass shootings...

 

[OTCurve]

At no point did I advocate "ignoring the Constitution", and I don't believe I ever expressed contempt for anybody in present company.

You are quite correct, and I apologize for the wording. All you advocated was a ban on 'assault' rifles and a further ban on semi-auto and pump long arms.

You know what's tyrannical? Surrounding school with razor-wire fences and armed guards. Kindergarteners being taught to yell and throw books at an attacker - not to stop him, not to save their own lives, but to draw out their deaths so their schoolmates have a few more seconds to get away. Hearing one of my friends say "at least my kids go to separate schools, so if there's a shooting I know I won't lose them both".

Nobody suggested those things, but I do wonder where all that imagery came from. Kindergarten sacrificial students?

Admittedly what your friend says is a sad commentary on the times, no argument there.

False. Most mass shootings in the USA (about 63%) take place in private homes, usually domestic violence related. You're probably referring to the research of John Lott, which only counts mass shootings that take place in public (thus excluding more than half of mass shootings right away), ignores shootings that took place as part of another crime (robberies gone wrong etc.), and which uses a rather bizarre definition of "gun-free zone" whereby Fort Hood - a military facility protected by armed military guards - is considered "gun-free".

I don't really consider everytown a good source for material. These are the same folk that brought you that 18 school shooting inaccuracy and here's a rebuttal of the mass shooting stats they claim. http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ootings-since-2009-occured-in-gun-free-zones/

The definition doesn't seem bizarre to many regarding part of an army base being a 'gun free zone', as the soldiers on duty there are not allowed to carry guns. The base does have security, which is armed. By your logic, if there were a resource officer at a school with a weapon, the school would not be classified as a 'gun free zone' even though nobody else can carry a gun.

The statistic also ignores the issue of cause and effect - in many cases gun-free zones are gun-free precisely because they tend to contain a large number of people, making them vulnerable to attack. Most mass murderers don't care if they get killed in the attack; they just want to go where the people are.

I will have to disagree with you there.

Your suggestion is that folk purposely make sure a crowd or gathering is unarmed precisely because they are vulnerable to attack? That's scary.

Oh, and what did you mean by safe spaces being around, but tending to be for white guys?

FWIW, I actually agree with you on a lot of this. (I'm skeptical about the effects of video games). We certainly should tackle the "why". But that sort of change is slow, and kids go on dying.

Given the number of weapons already in the hands of the public, a ban will do little to reduce availability to the criminal set, and confiscation won't end well for anyone. Any solution will be slow, but trying to keep schools safer never seems to be accepted as a temporary stopgap.


I wasn't using the Nice attack to say France is worse than the US. I was merely pointing out that anyone can kill a large number of people if they really want to, and not use a gun.

Also there was that China knife spree, killing I believe 33 and wounding 130. Around 2014.

 

[FGB]

To start with, end this gun-free zone nonsense. Since it was enacted, over 90% of the mass shootings have occurred in these zones.

Second, enforce the laws that are on the books. Actually punish straw purchasers. No more pleading down/dismissing gun charges. You use a gun in the commission of a crime, you're gone. Not on paper, for real.

Third, get the FBI to actually do their job. They can follow ten Russians for years in regards to hypothetical collusion, but they cannot find a guy who was visited by cops 39 times, posted comments about wanting to be a professional school shooter and used his own name?

Fourth, fully examine the mental health aspect, not just for these criminals, but for all the people out there that need help. Many institutions were shut down in past years, and those people were essentially left to fend for themselves.

Fifth, get people into schools to take a look at our kids. If all one has to go on is the news, then schoolkids are easily offended, violent game playing, cyberbullying, Tide pod eating snowflakes. I think that might indicate a potential problem.

The change this culture has undergone in the past thirty years has been dramatic. From the isolationism brought on by social media (and not interacting with people in real life, see Japan for the extreme of this), the lack of strong parental guidance (teaching right versus wrong) and this overblown sense of coddling and entitlement (why do colleges need safe spaces?), the fact that things are breaking down should not come as a surprise.

Years ago one was able to walk into a hardware store and buy a gun, no check, nothing. Rifles hung in the rear windows of pickups everywhere in middle America, kids went hunting after school, people walked down streets with guns and nobody blinked. Also, almost no atrocities like we see now.

WHY are these kids shooting each other? NOT how, WHY? Anger, angst, can't handle rejection, got a bad grade, confusing video games with reality, or in some cases of mass shootings, ideological causes.

Lastly, the growing trend that speech you do not like equates to violence and response to speech you don't like with physical violence is okay. That is a very very dangerous trend and needs to stop.

I think that will do for starters.

You forgot "Fame" other than that...Say on!

 

[yukonnights]

To start with, end this gun-free zone nonsense. Since it was enacted, over 90% of the mass shootings have occurred in these zones.

This is too simplistic. If all of the kids in the most recent incident had been handed a loaded pistol along with their school books on the first day of school the death toll would most likely be higher. Not sure how many have actually been involved in an incident where guns were involved...but it's way more chaotic than I would want for a 15 year old to deal with. Ditto, for the idea that teachers should be required to act as law enforcement...most of the teachers I've known would not want that pushed onto them.

Second, enforce the laws that are on the books. Actually punish straw purchasers. No more pleading down/dismissing gun charges. You use a gun in the commission of a crime, you're gone. Not on paper, for real.

Third, get the FBI to actually do their job. They can follow ten Russians for years in regards to hypothetical collusion, but they cannot find a guy who was visited by cops 39 times, posted comments about wanting to be a professional school shooter and used his own name?

It's true that laws and the enforcement of them would help a lot. I'm not sure all of the "freedom folks" would agree with you on this though. It's easy to blame and conflate the fact that some FBI agents investigating one serious crime as being the cause of another...but it's all smoke and mirrors, isn't it? The truth is; either no adequate law is on the books to enforce...or there is a lack of funding provided to do the job as it should be. I don't blame law enforcement on either. It's all politics and the solution is all politics.

Fourth, fully examine the mental health aspect, not just for these criminals, but for all the people out there that need help. Many institutions were shut down in past years, and those people were essentially left to fend for themselves.

I agree with this. It will entail more laws and a lot of funding though. But. the last I read, the Las Vegas shooter didn't have such a history with mental health issues. Nor do those who actually commit the majority of gun violence such as domestic arguments, drunks, etc. As we all know, these high profile massacres are a fraction of the total of gun deaths each year.

Fifth, get people into schools to take a look at our kids. If all one has to go on is the news, then schoolkids are easily offended, violent game playing, cyberbullying, Tide pod eating snowflakes. I think that might indicate a potential problem.

Again, another good idea. And again, more laws and funding required. What's the chances of this happening, I wonder?

The change this culture has undergone in the past thirty years has been dramatic. From the isolationism brought on by social media (and not interacting with people in real life, see Japan for the extreme of this), the lack of strong parental guidance (teaching right versus wrong) and this overblown sense of coddling and entitlement (why do colleges need safe spaces?), the fact that things are breaking down should not come as a surprise.

Years ago one was able to walk into a hardware store and buy a gun, no check, nothing. Rifles hung in the rear windows of pickups everywhere in middle America, kids went hunting after school, people walked down streets with guns and nobody blinked. Also, almost no atrocities like we see now.

WHY are these kids shooting each other? NOT how, WHY? Anger, angst, can't handle rejection, got a bad grade, confusing video games with reality, or in some cases of mass shootings, ideological causes.

Lastly, the growing trend that speech you do not like equates to violence and response to speech you don't like with physical violence is okay. That is a very very dangerous trend and needs to stop.

I think that will do for starters.

This is all very relevant. And I like the gist of the described problems that need to be addressed. But if we're going to have to wait for this country to become civil again, I fear it's gong to be a long bloody wait. The immediate obvious solution is to require meaningful training for anyone who wishes to own a gun. You're right when you say guns don't kill, people do. That's why we have to filter the people and only allow those who are qualified mentally and who have real weapons training to have them.

 

[coachdb18]

To start with, end this gun-free zone nonsense. Since it was enacted, over 90% of the mass shootings have occurred in these zones.

I think the entire post was spot on, but THIS part of the post deserves to be the bludgeon used to make 'gun free zones' go away, and for gun haters to face an impossible to ignore statistical fact, their gun free zones are nothing but kill zones. They should be held criminally liable just for the idea, much less the ensuing carnage.

 

[Bramblethorn]

You are quite correct, and I apologize for the wording. All you advocated was a ban on 'assault' rifles and a further ban on semi-auto and pump long arms.

Noting that assault weapons have been banned before, at least partially (the 1994 bill didn't encompass pre-existing weapons) so that doesn't necessarily require amendment to the Constitution. That ban also encompassed some semi-automatic weapons.

(For the benefit of gun enthusiasts who may be grinding their teeth right now, I will acknowledge that "assault weapon" is a vague and unhelpful term, and that the 1994 bill had some very weird inclusions.)

BTW, I realised there's one thing missing from NightL's list, which I will also advocate: kill the Dickey Amendment.

(re. "Surrounding school with razor-wire fences and armed guards. Kindergarteners being taught to yell and throw books at an attacker - not to stop him, not to save their own lives, but to draw out their deaths so their schoolmates have a few more seconds to get away. ")

Nobody suggested those things, but I do wonder where all that imagery came from.

From this post and this one, you certainly seemed to be advocating armed guards and perhaps even arming teachers, but perhaps I misunderstood?

Fencing has been widely advocated as part of a defensive strategy; if you google through recent discussion on school safety measures or see e.g. here, you'll find it. It's pretty much inevitable if you want to defend something the size of a school campus without hiring dozens of guards (unlikely to be affordable); you need to restrict access to a few choke points that can be covered by a small number of guards, and that means serious fences or walls or something similar.

And you'd better hope the guards are good, because if they don't stop that shooter in a hurry... well, the same measures that were meant to stop the shooter from getting in will also stop students from getting out.

Kindergarten sacrificial students?

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens...d-to-throw-books-at-school-shooters-1.4542023

I don't really consider everytown a good source for material. These are the same folk that brought you that 18 school shooting inaccuracy and here's a rebuttal of the mass shooting stats they claim. http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ootings-since-2009-occured-in-gun-free-zones/

I'll agree that Everytown is partisan. Breitbart is very, very partisan. Unfortunately, thanks largely to that Dickey Amendment, it's very hard to find non-partisan sources on this issue. But in this case we can make some headway by looking at the partisan sources.

The Everytown report I linked to was published in 2017, drawing on data about shootings up to December 2016. The Breitbart article was published in 2014, so obviously it's not a direct response to that report, but let's look at it anyway.

The Breitbart piece is drawn pretty much entirely from this 2014 CPRC report. The first author on that report is John Lott, and as I mentioned before, Lott only considers public mass shootings. The introduction makes this clear: "In this report, the CPRC looks at mass public shootings since the beginning of 2009."

They do go on to criticise a 2014 report from Everytown (not the same one I linked to):

"The CPRC also re-evaluates Everytown for Gun Safety's recent findings on mass shootings... Everytown greatly exaggerated their number by including gang killings and shootings as part of some other crime as well as residential killings involving families."

In other words - both sides are in agreement that the Everytown stats include residential mass shootings, and CPRC's do not. To give CPRC their due, they are very clear that their stats refer only to public mass shootings (i.e. less than half of all mass shooting incidents).

Breitbart repeats that language in the article, but their headline drops out that important qualifier "public". People who only read the headlines then cite that as "92% of mass shootings in gun-free zones", which is simply false, and not supported by either report.

The CPRC report states that "Everytown's discussion contained numerous other errors. Everytown’s claims were flawed as to the extent of mental illness, the age of the killers, and even where the attacks occurred. Those errors occurred because they did not do a complete news search on each case."

As noted above, this refers to an earlier report from Everytown, not the 2017 report that I linked.

The one I did link includes an appendix which gives the details of all the shootings they looked at in order to get their numbers. So you don't have to take it on trust; if you don't believe Everytown has reported them accurately, you can go verify those reports for yourself.

Since home shootings are the central point of contention here, I randomly picked three of the "home shooting" incidents in their appendix.

#1: Sinking Springs, PA, 08/06/2016. Everytown says: "Mark Short, 40, fatally shot his wife and their three children ... before fatally shooting himself."

So, did that happen?

Yep.
Yep. He shot the family dog, too.

#2: Liberty, SC, 10/14/2011. Everytown says: "Susan Diane Hendricks, 48, fatally shot her ex-husband, their two sons, and her stepmother."

Yep.
Yep.

#3: Greenwood, NM, 9/10/2015. Everytown says: "Brian Short, 45, fatally shot his wife and their three children ... before fatally shooting himself. The shooting took place in the family’s home."

Yep.
Yep.

In all three of those cases, the Everytown appendix seems to be an accurate summary of the facts as reported. I didn't check further - reading up on this kind of shit is profoundly depressing - and I'm sure that if you looked long enough and hard enough, you could find an error in the details here and there. But three for three is enough for me to be pretty confident that their reports are mostly correct.

I haven't hunted down the earlier report that CPRC was criticising, so for all I know it's quite possible that it did have all the failings that CPRC attributes to it. But if so, it's also quite possible that Everytown saw that criticism and improved their quality-checking for the 2017 report.

Bottom line: a very large percentage of mass shootings take place in private homes, the CPRC stats explicitly exclude those events, and therefore they're not going to give accurate information about "mass shootings" in general.

The definition doesn't seem bizarre to many regarding part of an army base being a 'gun free zone', as the soldiers on duty there are not allowed to carry guns. The base does have security, which is armed. By your logic, if there were a resource officer at a school with a weapon, the school would not be classified as a 'gun free zone' even though nobody else can carry a gun.

Yes, if a zone has designated people on duty carrying guns there, it's not "gun free". That's what those words mean.

Otherwise, are we going to say that a school with armed guards is still "gun free" because the students aren't allowed to carry?

I will have to disagree with you there.

Your suggestion is that folk purposely make sure a crowd or gathering is unarmed precisely because they are vulnerable to attack? That's scary.

Last weekend I went to a concert with about 3000 other people. To the best of my knowledge, none of the audience were armed, and neither were the security guards. I expect there would've been a handful of police there, armed with handguns, but I didn't see them.

It wasn't scary at all. The only thought I had for safety was checking that there wasn't any risk of a crowd crush (there wasn't) and then I spent the rest of the evening listening to music and chatting to my partner.

I can understand that if you're used to a violent society, it would feel instinctively scary to know that somebody could attack and you don't have the means to fight back. Even in my neck of the woods, it's not completely risk-free; last year some dickhead killed six people with a car before the police stopped him. But the fact that it's so hard for those dickheads to get guns - especially rapid-fire high-capacity guns - greatly outweighs the tiny difference that carrying a gun might make to my own safety.

Oh, and what did you mean by safe spaces being around, but tending to be for white guys?

As an example, "gentlemen's club" wasn't always a euphemism for "strip joint". Once upon a time it was a place where men could go and spend time exclusively in the company of other men of similar social status and political persuasion. They've declined a bit lately, and some now admit women, but there are still quite a few men-only clubs around. A club may not be officially white-only, but it's easy for them to end up that way; people have plenty of ways to discourage others from showing up.

That's a safe space. It's not called that, it's not advertised as that, it doesn't officially impose the same sort of rules you'd find in a university campus safe space, but in practice it serves the same sort of purpose: it's a place where people can go to relax or to focus on something, without the unpleasantness of having to encounter a contrary opinion.

One thing that these "sheltered snowflakes can't deal with the world, so they demand safe spaces" discussions pretty much always miss is that nobody is expecting to live in that sheltered environment 24/7. Safe spaces are about giving people space where they can breathe easy just for a few hours without having to argue with somebody who believes they shouldn't exist/etc. etc.

Given the number of weapons already in the hands of the public, a ban will do little to reduce availability to the criminal set, and confiscation won't end well for anyone.

"The criminal set" is not a monolith.

Australia has organised crime. I walk past a mob-owned restaurant almost every day. I would expect that our local mafias still have access to semi-automatic weapons if they want them; they have the connections and the resources to smuggle them in, or occasionally to steal them from police/military.

But mafias are businesses, and the people who run them want to stay in business. They may be vicious sons-of-bitches, and sometimes they go after one another, but they're smart enough to understand that mass murder - or any murder of innocent parties - is very bad for business.

I have no doubt that there are other people who've held on to their semi-autos. But a ban gives them a very strong incentive to stash them out of sight, which reduces the temptation to pull them out in the middle of a domestic argument, and reduces the risk that somebody else will get hold of them. That's very nearly as good as taking them out of circulation altogether.

Note also that mass shooters almost always turn out to have a track record of domestic violence, which means at least one family member who has a strong incentive to report any illegal firearms.

I wasn't using the Nice attack to say France is worse than the US. I was merely pointing out that anyone can kill a large number of people if they really want to, and not use a gun.

They can, and occasionally they do. But there are reasons why guns are the mass killer's weapon of choice.

If a killer just wants to rack up a body count and make the headlines, and doesn't care who they kill, yeah, they can do what the guy in Nice did and drive a vehicle into a crowd during a public event.

But most mass murderers want to target some more specific group: workmates, family members, classmates, and so on. Vehicle attacks aren't so effective for that kind of attack.

There's also the psychological side. Shooting somebody is a different act to bombing them or stabbing them or driving a truck into them; it lets the attacker maintain a certain distance while still seeing the consequences first-hand. A terrorist who can't get a gun will look for some other weapon that does the job; it's not so clear that other would-be killers will simply substitute weapons.

Also there was that China knife spree, killing I believe 33 and wounding 130. Around 2014.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack

Your numbers are roughly correct, but note that this wasn't a lone attacker like mass shootings are, or even a two-person attack like Columbine or San Bernardino. It was an organised attack by a group of eight terrorists. Between them they killed 31 civilians, i.e. on average ~ four per attacker. Eight attackers with a gun could've killed a lot more.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I think the entire post was spot on, but THIS part of the post deserves to be the bludgeon used to make 'gun free zones' go away, and for gun haters to face an impossible to ignore statistical fact, t

*not actually a fact.

 

[NightL]

The dinosaurs are feeling threatened, but it was the young who were slaughtered yet again. The young will take over and your world will cease to exist. If they feel short changed and dismissed in the forthcoming nationwide school walk out, just remember they are the next round of voters. When offered the opportunity they will vote in numbers like never before.

An NRA controlled government is establishment they will reject. The young are never fond of establishment. They also don't fear your kind OTCurve.

Your arguments and scrabbling for Breitbart "statistics" will soon enough be just irrelevant.

_______________________________

I mentioned my disdain for what I see as the influence of American nightly television shows and also violent games has on the normalising and glorification of guns. Guns are nightly portrayed as the easy solution to solve disputes and also the almighty attention seeker. If you throw in lax upholding of laws, laws that allow military style weapons to be easily accessible, the careless nature and regard to storing weapons then those bent on self-destructive attention seeking or have a propensity toward domestic abuse are likely to gravitate to what is dished up nightly as "normal". If guns are easily accessible they will use them to tragic results time and time again.

The argument "but if they bring in tighter gun laws it will only be a matter of time before the government regulates how you wipe your arse" is just nonsense. As I mentioned in an earlier post here, you don't drive the kids to school in a formula 1 car, nascar or indeed an armoured tank as they are deemed dangerous to be on public roads. Regulation, restriction and licensing for the safety of the public - the world has not gone to hell and back again because of that, nor will tighter gun control laws be the downfall of modern America.

This whole "but they will use knives or drive cars" - maybe, but I fancy my running ability against someone wielding a knife any day, or even leaping from the path of an oncoming car than trying to dodge a bullet, especially when the bullet is followed almost instantaneously by countless other rounds.

Stupid stupid dinosaurs. Young people now resent you and their bite, even before they can vote is making the NRA controlled government nervous as all hell.

I'm curious OTCurve, how will you respond to this growing swell of protest from the young? Threaten them with an automatic weapon?

 

[NightL]

Gun owner destroys AR-15 video after Florida school shooting.
https://youtu.be/ghom3MiDSd4

 

[SissySalina]

The dinosaurs are feeling threatened, but it was the young who were slaughtered yet again. The young will take over and your world will cease to exist. If they feel short changed and dismissed in the forthcoming nationwide school walk out, just remember they are the next round of voters. When offered the opportunity they will vote in numbers like never before.

An NRA controlled government is establishment they will reject. The young are never fond of establishment. They also don't fear your kind OTCurve.

Your arguments and scrabbling for Breitbart "statistics" will soon enough be just irrelevant.

_______________________________

I mentioned my disdain for what I see as the influence of American nightly television shows and also violent games has on the normalising and glorification of guns. Guns are nightly portrayed as the easy solution to solve disputes and also the almighty attention seeker. If you throw in lax upholding of laws, laws that allow military style weapons to be easily accessible, the careless nature and regard to storing weapons then those bent on self-destructive attention seeking or have a propensity toward domestic abuse are likely to gravitate to what is dished up nightly as "normal". If guns are easily accessible they will use them to tragic results time and time again.

The argument "but if they bring in tighter gun laws it will only be a matter of time before the government regulates how you wipe your arse" is just nonsense. As I mentioned in an earlier post here, you don't drive the kids to school in a formula 1 car, nascar or indeed an armoured tank as they are deemed dangerous to be on public roads. Regulation, restriction and licensing for the safety of the public - the world has not gone to hell and back again because of that, nor will tighter gun control laws be the downfall of modern America.

This whole "but they will use knives or drive cars" - maybe, but I fancy my running ability against someone wielding a knife any day, or even leaping from the path of an oncoming car than trying to dodge a bullet, especially when the bullet is followed almost instantaneously by countless other rounds.

Stupid stupid dinosaurs. Young people now resent you and their bite, even before they can vote is making the NRA controlled government nervous as all hell.

I'm curious OTCurve, how will you respond to this growing swell of protest from the young? Threaten them with an automatic weapon?

The problem is as they grow up their minds change.
Will make a deal: Go back to the 1994 Law on assault weapons in exchange for the juvenal records being public and not being expunged at 18.
Want a deal?

 

[NightL]

"Support for Gun Control Surges to Highest Level Ever as GOP Lawmakers Sit on Their Hands"

"In a new poll, a whopping 97 percent of people say they support universal background checks."

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2521

Quinnipiac University Poll
February 20, 2018 - U.S. Support For Gun Control Tops 2-1, Highest Ever, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Let Dreamers Stay, 80 Percent Of Voters Say

PDF format
Additional Trend Information
Sample and Methodology detail

American voters support stricter gun laws 66 - 31 percent, the highest level of support ever measured by the independent Quinnipiac University National Poll, with 50 - 44 percent support among gun owners and 62 - 35 percent support from white voters with no college degree and 58 - 38 percent support among white men.

Today's result is up from a negative 47 - 50 percent measure of support in a December 23, 2015, survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll.

Support for universal background checks is itself almost universal, 97 - 2 percent, including 97 - 3 percent among gun owners. Support for gun control on other questions is at its highest level since the Quinnipiac University Poll began focusing on this issue in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre:
67 - 29 percent for a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons;
83 - 14 percent for a mandatory waiting period for all gun purchases. It is too easy to buy a gun in the U.S. today, American voters say 67 - 3 percent. If more people carried guns, the U.S. would be less safe, voters say 59 - 33 percent. Congress needs to do more to reduce gun violence, voters say 75 - 17 percent.
Stricter gun control would do more to reduce gun violence in schools, 40 percent of voters say, while 34 percent say metal detectors would do more and 20 percent say armed teachers are the answer.

"If you think Americans are largely unmoved by the mass shootings, you should think again. Support for stricter gun laws is up 19 points in little more than 2 years," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

"In the last two months, some of the biggest surges in support for tightening gun laws comes from demographic groups you may not expect, independent voters, men, and whites with no college degree."

Mass killings by U.S. citizens is a bigger problem than mass killings by people from other countries, American voters say 70 - 20 percent.​