Uvalde and the American Condition

[Tiassa]

The impression that many are getting is that the cops arrived and didn't do anything and just watched while 19 kids were shot. Two cops arrived within 12 minutes and took 4 minutes to access the situation before going in.

Why second guess that? They called for backup, a SWAT team and all the rest but it's a small town.

Well, that didn't age well.

OK, great, the cops didn't react as we would have liked. The problem is still with the 18 year old who killed all of the children. Let's fix that... We already know that cops are dummies. Who would want to be a cop?

Your argument is almost falling into the NRA trap of "We need good guys with a gun to stop bad guys with a gun".

That was wrong before it was ever posted.

The Border Patrol doesn't know why it was called out; doesn't know why the local police force stopped them from acting once they arrived; an official said it is unclear why local SWAT did not respond.

Consider our neighbor's approach:

This is what I fear. I fear the narrative is going to be bent to become about what the cops did or didn't do ....

.... It is designed to draw focus away from the core gun issue.

Actually, the "good guys with a gun" argument was slain in the Uvalde massacre.

"Bent". We ought fear the "narrative is going to be bent".

But in the American discourse, instead of addressing the "core gun issue", we get excuses about hardening schools and more good guys with guns. Republicans in Congress are talking about using Covid funds to reduce the number of doors in schools. Part of what we need to do in order to address the "core gun issue" is clear away the excuses and distractions. The miserable, even insidious performance of law enforcers in Uvalde is actually an example of what we get from hardening the schools and relying on good guys with guns.

And, sure, "the problem is still with the 18 year old who killed all of the children", but even that tale reaches back to the "core gun issue". Out in the chatter: Gun laws frustrated an attempt to acquire a rifle last year. The shooter allegedly had a history of threatening rape and murder, but nobody did anything, not even after the livestream in which he threatened to rape and murder a girl who apparently turned him down, and the time he threatened to rape and murder the mother of another girl who turned him down got him all of a temporary ban from Yubo, where he was known as, "Yubo's school shooter".

The "core gun issue" does not exist in a vacuum; we cannot access some of the underlying attitudes of the "core gun issue" without addressing the vein of masculinity feeding the beliefs and fears driving the violence.

Neither can we get to the "core gun issue" without scraping away the distortions that obscure it. Consider political whiplash: First they complained that teachers groomed children for sex abuse; now they want to give those teachers guns.

Less dramatic but still strange is the part when a neighbor who doesn't like "cancel culture" suggests a course that people who complain about "cancel culture" call "cancel culture". Moreover, the suggested boycott defies behavioral economy, is thus observably unrealistic, and in that aspect generally unsurprising, but might also be exemplary: Consider the idea that gun buyers will boycott stores selling semiautomatic assault rifles.

Anyway, people might have the impression that the cops arrived and didn't do anything and just watched while 19 kids were shot, but cops didn't actually watch. They listened. Yesterday, we learned that police first entered the school all of two minutes after the shooter; twenty-eight minutes later, nineteen officers were in the hallway outside the classroom, deciding to do nothing for another forty-seven minutes, hearing gunshots as children inside called 911 and begged for help and died.

Yet, even after we learn this—

Once someone walks into a classroom with an AR15 and the intent to kill as many kids as possible...it doesn't matter what the cops do. It's already too late.

—people still tell us stuff like that.

When I said↑ police chose to aid and abet a mass killer, that was at the edge of what I was willing to say in the moment; it is also true I simply could not have reasonably imagined circumstances so extraordinarily stupid as the emerging facts. When chatter in my twitfeed suggested maybe law enforcement shot a child while engaging the shooter, that actually seemed like a reasonable possibility compared to the fragmented and contradictory narratives emerging. What we have, however, is a sketch well beyond anything any reasonable person ought reasonably imagine. Truth may be stranger than fiction, but some part of this ought to at least pretend to make sense despite our human frailty.

Proper consideration of the "core gun issue" involves public vivisection of American gun culture's living heart. And for those who, in other political discourse, blanche at the prospect of libertarians and conservatives feeling badly about themselves, understand there is no political correctness sufficient to assuage our gun culture save for surrendering the question at the outset, i.e., there is no "core gun issue".

The excuses we make in order to appease describe a society in crisis.

It is not merely the fact that this extraordinary mass murder has occurred; the incomprehensibility of everything else about this infliction feels exponential.

 

[Seattle]

I think many people think this issue is an easier fix than it is. For instance, if you live in Australia and think that we should just change the gun laws because that is what they would do…the voters involved are American and not Australian. That has to be taken into account.

Even if you are for raising the age for gun ownership, closing loopholes, and banning or severely restricting the sale of AR 15 type weapons (as I am) you still have to consider the other side of the arguments.

You have to consider that 4 or 5 people a year use these weapons to shoot up schools and yet Americans own 15 million AR 15s that aren’t used that way.

It could be argued that if a few 18 year olds purposely drive a car into a crowd each year that cars should be taken away from all 18 year olds.

You can make distinctions of course but you do have to realize that the number of people who commit these acts is very small and whatever changes to the law you make will likely have little impact. Millions of weapons are already out there, only a few commit these acts and there’s no way to predict where it will happen next time.

The problem is the act and not the gun for the most part although I agree that the gun makes the act have much greater outcomes. The status quo is not acceptable but the answer isn’t as clear-cut as some seem to think.

My point is that it’s just not a black and white distinction. Half the country lives in cities and the other half live in rural areas. Those in rural areas have more guns but commit almost none of this type of crime and they don’t tend to vote for gun reform.

 

[Michael 345]

That would be fine with me (no AR15). Now what?

Someone invents a weapon which is sufficiently different from a AR15 but has the same capabilities

High Court agrees - New weapon floods the market

New extremely broad laws are drafted where a 2HB pencil could be banned in some circumstances

High Court calls such laws draconian and removes them. 2HB pencils return to Arts classes

Americans seem intent on producing as many Gordian knots as they can just because they can

No quarter given, none taken

 

[Seattle]

That brings up another point. Is an AR 15 a mass killing weapon or a modern rifle? If you ban AR 15 and don't ban other rifles...why?

All guns are designed to kill so no need to keep bringing that up. Even during the AR 15 ban the manufacturers just made weapons that didn't have the offending parts.

It gets pretty silly. You can kill a lot of people with any gun and you can carry extra magazines pretty easily and allowing one barrel length but not another just gets tedious.

As I said, the "fix" isn't simple. I think increasing the age and the paperwork and ownership requirements is about all that you can do along with "red flag" laws.

 

[Bells]

That would be fine with me (no AR15). Now what?

You tell me.

Leaving aside other countries in the world where these crimes don't happen at all or are exceptionally rare and people can go for years and years without it happening, if we just look at the US and the US only..

When semi-assault weapons were banned previously, mass shootings and gun deaths went down substantially. When that ban expired, they shot back up. Something something about correlation goes here.

I think many people think this issue is an easier fix than it is. For instance, if you live in Australia and think that we should just change the gun laws because that is what they would do…the voters involved are American and not Australian. That has to be taken into account.

Don't even have to look at Australia for a comparison. As you note, we aren't for gun and country over here and the greater majority believe America's lack of gun laws is obscene and downright insane.

Just look at the US and US only.

Compare then and now: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30188421/

Here is a visual representation: https://infogram.com/mass-shooting-deaths-awb-1ho16voz0d89x4n

You have to consider that 4 or 5 people a year use these weapons to shoot up schools and yet Americans own 15 million AR 15s that aren’t used that way.

4 to 5 a year?

Using even conservative parameters, there's been 27 shootings in schools in America so far this year: https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/05/26/how-many-school-shootings-2022/

You can make distinctions of course but you do have to realize that the number of people who commit these acts is very small and whatever changes to the law you make will likely have little impact. Millions of weapons are already out there, only a few commit these acts and there’s no way to predict where it will happen next time.

Over 19k homicides a year using guns is hardly a "very small" amount. You do realise this, yes?

Anyway, people might have the impression that the cops arrived and didn't do anything and just watched while 19 kids were shot, but cops didn't actually watch. They listened. Yesterday, we learned that police first entered the school all of two minutes after the shooter; twenty-eight minutes later, nineteen officers were in the hallway outside the classroom, deciding to do nothing for another forty-seven minutes, hearing gunshots as children inside called 911 and begged for help and died.

It's actually worse..

11:27 a.m., Tuesday: A teacher propped open an exterior door of Robb Elementary, according to the Texas Department of Public Safety.

11:28 a.m.: Uvalde Police received first reports of a crashed vehicle and a man with a backpack, some form of body armor and armed with a rifle.

The suspect, 18-year-old Salvador Ramos, jumped out of the passenger side of the vehicle and walked toward a funeral home across the street from the wreck, where he fired shots toward two people in the parking lot of the funeral home, who ran away uninjured.
Juan Carranza, who lives across the street from Robb Elementary, told the Associated Press he saw Ramos crash his truck into a ditch outside of the school, grab a rifle and fire shots toward the people outside of the funeral home.

11:31 a.m.: Ramos begins firing into classrooms while walking down the street toward the school, as responding officers drive by the suspect while responding to the reports of the crashed vehicle and man with a gun near the funeral home. Ramos then climbed a fence into the school parking lot and continued firing rounds at the school.

11:33 a.m.: Ramos walked into the school through the door that was propped open.DPS officials said previous statements that a school resource officer confronting the suspect before entering the school were not accurate—the school officer was “not on campus” that day, according to DPS Director Steve McGraw, though the school’s officer responded after hearing 911 calls.

Ramos walked through several hallways before entering classrooms 111 and 112, firing at least 100 rounds, within minutes of entering the school.

11:35 a.m.: The first three Uvalde police officers on the scene enter the school through the same door Ramos used, followed by another four officers.

Two of the seven officers received graze wounds from Ramos firing toward them from inside a locked classroom.
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/annaka...or-tactical-units-to-arrive/?sh=aec98ae34cf1]​

I am not listing the rest, because it's horrific. Emphasis (bold) is mine.

They drove past him as he was shooting into the school from the street, they didn't stop.. They were responding to a call of a crashed car, and someone getting out of the car with body armor and a rifle. And they drove right past him as he was firing into the school as he walked down the street.

He hadn't entered the school grounds yet. He was walking down the street, firing at the funeral home and then the school. They drove right past him. He then jumped the fence into the carpark, and entered the school shooting. Police didn't arrive at the school until 4 minutes later.

And the gun nuts are focusing on how and why the teacher had that door open.. Meanwhile, police drove past him as he was shooting his weapon and didn't stop..

 

[Seattle]

You tell me.

Leaving aside other countries in the world where these crimes don't happen at all or are exceptionally rare and people can go for years and years without it happening, if we just look at the US and the US only..

When semi-assault weapons were banned previously, mass shootings and gun deaths went down substantially. When that ban expired, they shot back up. Something something about correlation goes here.

Don't even have to look at Australia for a comparison. As you note, we aren't for gun and country over here and the greater majority believe America's lack of gun laws is obscene and downright insane.

Just look at the US and US only.

Compare then and now: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30188421/

Here is a visual representation: https://infogram.com/mass-shooting-deaths-awb-1ho16voz0d89x4n


4 to 5 a year?

Using even conservative parameters, there's been 27 shootings in schools in America so far this year: https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/05/26/how-many-school-shootings-2022/


Over 19k homicides a year using guns is hardly a "very small" amount. You do realise this, yes?

What are "semi-assault" weapons"? This is part of the problem, people not knowing what they are talking about. Semi-automatic weapons today, are just modern weapons whether you are talking about handguns or rifles.

"Assault" weapons are all guns (they are all designed to kill) and the term is usually used just when the gun looks scarier than some other gun in someone's mind. It has no actual meaning. "Semi-assault" definitely has no meaning and is a word that's you've just made up.

Yes, this is a problem (school shootings) that is mainly happening in the U.S. That's why were are concerned about it. It's unique, odd, is a new thing. We have always had guns and we've never had this until recently. That's why it isn't "just" about guns.

It didn't go up because the "assault weapon" ban ended (correlation without causation). It didn't happen before the gun ban either. The gun ban was also a misnomer in that the same/similar guns continued to be sold but the manufacturers just eliminated the offending parts mentioned in the legislation.

You really aren't very well informed on this matter. Rage over knowledge?

 

[billvon]

I think many people think this issue is an easier fix than it is. For instance, if you live in Australia and think that we should just change the gun laws because that is what they would do…the voters involved are American and not Australian. That has to be taken into account.

Right! And they are in the northern hemisphere instead of the southern hemisphere, so no solution that works for Australians will work for Americans. And of course they say "barbie" instead of "barbeque."

You have to consider that 4 or 5 people a year use these weapons to shoot up schools and yet Americans own 15 million AR 15s that aren’t used that way.

That's very true. And even fewer people fly aircraft into buildings every year, but the law still persecutes pilots by requiring them to get burdensome pilot's licenses and expensive, unneccessary medicals. Totally unfair.

It could be argued that if a few 18 year olds purposely drive a car into a crowd each year that cars should be taken away from all 18 year olds.

Or - worse yet! - require them to take an intentionally difficult driver's ed course, then make them pay money to get a license, then make them register their car. If you really hated freedom you could force them to get punitively expensive car insurance and then put them in jail if they refuse to comply with these Hitler-esque dictates.

My point is that it’s just not a black and white distinction. Half the country lives in cities and the other half live in rural areas. Those in rural areas have more guns but commit almost none of this type of crime and they don’t tend to vote for gun reform.

Nope. Gun homicide rates in rural and metropolitan areas are almost identical.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1047279718300425

 

[Seattle]

Right! And they are in the northern hemisphere instead of the southern hemisphere, so no solution that works for Australians will work for Americans. And of course they say "barbie" instead of "barbeque."

That's very true. And even fewer people fly aircraft into buildings every year, but the law still persecutes pilots by requiring them to get burdensome pilot's licenses and expensive, unneccessary medicals. Totally unfair.

Or - worse yet! - require them to take an intentionally difficult driver's ed course, then make them pay money to get a license, then make them register their car. If you really hated freedom you could force them to get punitively expensive car insurance and then put them in jail if they refuse to comply with these Hitler-esque dictates.

Nope. Gun homicide rates in rural and metropolitan areas are almost identical.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1047279718300425

I'm sure your post sounds good after a few drinks but it's usually best to not post as it doesn't age well, ya'know?

I didn't say or imply that Australians are so different that gun control can't be considered here. My point was that you have to get the votes and we don't have the votes even with all the talk of 75% of those in the U.S. being for gun control. That's not how 75% have voted and that's ignoring the commonly held attitudes in most any rural community that I've ever been to and I've been to a lot.

The rest of your diatribe was an argument again the NRA and not anything that I said. I have no issues with closing loopholes, "red flag" laws, raising ownership age, etc.

We were also talking about mass shootings in schools. Those don't seem to be happening in rural communities and homicides occur everywhere and those aren't going up. Crime has been going down for decades.

Teenagers killing elementary school kids is the subject and that's what is new and the solution IMO includes gun control regulations and figuring out why this is "suddenly" happening. Guns have always been around but not mass school shootings.

I know you don't think that they will suddenly stop if we pass whatever gun control regulations that can reasonably be passed so why are you arguing with my comments? Me, not the NRA. Usually there is some degree of nuance in your posts after the "nope".

If teenagers keep wanting to kill others at school, this will not stop based on any current proposals. We already know that homicide rates in the U.S. are higher than most other (all other) developed countries. That's unfortunate but that hasn't suddenly changed. If we could have the lack of guns seen in Australia or Western Europe I'd be for that. That's not even a possibility however. Focus.

 

[Bells]

What are "semi-assault" weapons"? This is part of the problem, people not knowing what they are talking about. Semi-automatic weapons today, are just modern weapons whether you are talking about handguns or rifles.

"Assault" weapons are all guns (they are all designed to kill) and the term is usually used just when the gun looks scarier than some other gun in someone's mind. It has no actual meaning. "Semi-assault" definitely has no meaning and is a word that's you've just made up.

Yep.

I made it up.

Yes, this is a problem (school shootings) that is mainly happening in the U.S. That's why were are concerned about it. It's unique, odd, is a new thing. We have always had guns and we've never had this until recently. That's why it isn't "just" about guns.

Yep.. It's a recent phenomenon..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_(before_2000)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

It didn't go up because the "assault weapon" ban ended (correlation without causation). It didn't happen before the gun ban either. The gun ban was also a misnomer in that the same/similar guns continued to be sold but the manufacturers just eliminated the offending parts mentioned in the legislation.

Just like Australia banning guns and 0 mass shootings since then is correlation without causation...!

Every country that had mass shootings and banned firearms or imposed restrictions saw mass shootings stop. But of course, can't say that is what caused the shootings to stop... It cannot possibly mean that reducing access to such weapons would see these weapons used less.. It must be something else!!

So the US banning these weapons resulted in a 70% drop in mass shootings and when the ban was lifted, it sat a massive jump in shootings.. Cannot be indicative of having better access to these firearms resulted in more mass shootings..

That's what you are essentially saying, yes?

It didn't happen before the gun ban either. The gun ban was also a misnomer in that the same/similar guns continued to be sold but the manufacturers just eliminated the offending parts mentioned in the legislation.

You really aren't very well informed on this matter. Rage over knowledge?

Nah my dude. I have no idea and simply can't put two and two together. You are clearly the well informed one here, because you add two and two and get five! Good mafs!

Please inform me on how everywhere that's banned these firearms or placed restrictions on accessing them saw a dramatic reduction to end of these types of events, and how when the US imposed restrictions, saw a dramatic drop to these events.. And the moment the bans lifted, the number of mass shootings went up dramatically... And how there is no correlation, despite all evidence showing there is a correlation.

 

[Bells]

Teenagers killing elementary school kids is the subject and that's what is new and the solution IMO includes gun control regulations and figuring out why this is "suddenly" happening. Guns have always been around but not mass school shootings.

Have you been living in a cave and rubbing two rocks together to make fire for the last 30 + years?

 

[Seattle]

Have you been living in a cave and rubbing two rocks together to make fire for the last 30 + years?

New as in guns have been around in the U.S. since the beginning and school shootings weren't a thing when I was in school. Teenagers could buy guns by then. The original AR15 was made in the 1950's.

 

[Seattle]

Yep.

I made it up.


Yep.. It's a recent phenomenon..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States_(before_2000)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States


Just like Australia banning guns and 0 mass shootings since then is correlation without causation...!

Every country that had mass shootings and banned firearms or imposed restrictions saw mass shootings stop. But of course, can't say that is what caused the shootings to stop... It cannot possibly mean that reducing access to such weapons would see these weapons used less.. It must be something else!!

So the US banning these weapons resulted in a 70% drop in mass shootings and when the ban was lifted, it sat a massive jump in shootings.. Cannot be indicative of having better access to these firearms resulted in more mass shootings..

That's what you are essentially saying, yes?


Nah my dude. I have no idea and simply can't put two and two together. You are clearly the well informed one here, because you add two and two and get five! Good mafs!

Please inform me on how everywhere that's banned these firearms or placed restrictions on accessing them saw a dramatic reduction to end of these types of events, and how when the US imposed restrictions, saw a dramatic drop to these events.. And the moment the bans lifted, the number of mass shootings went up dramatically... And how there is no correlation, despite all evidence showing there is a correlation.

You said "semi-assault weapon". Yes, you made that up. I assume you meant (?) "semi-automatic weapon".

There weren't many mass school shootings before the ban was enacted (as I pointed out) so there couldn't have been "massive reductions in these events". The ban ended in 2004 and the first of the mass school shootings didn't begin until 1999 (which was while the ban was in effect).

Believe what you want.

 

[Michael 345]

shootings weren't a thing when I was in school.

My take - much stuff was not around (were a thing)
Something becomes a thing, suddenly the thing becomes a copycat thing

I'm going to express an option many will have elements of copycat

Went to tablet for local news and was greated with this, to me, bizzare headline



Wonder how "had his reasons" will play out in court?

 

[Seattle]

My take - much stuff was not around (were a thing)
Something becomes a thing, suddenly the thing becomes a copycat thing

I'm going to express an option many will have elements of copycat

Went to tablet for local news and was greated with this, to me, bizzare headline

View attachment 4943

Wonder how "had his reasons" will play out in court?

It won't play out in court. It's a stupid headline and now we are discussing it. It's irrelevant to the topic. There is too much information but not enough that is accurate or on point.

Ted Bundy "had his reasons" and his mother loved him. Who cares?

Speaking of Ted Bundy, he is probably more relevant to the topic of school shootings. Mass murderers frustrate us, the public, because they are so hard to catch and stop. They go on for years even though people are trying to stop them.

These school shootings are similar. They could crop up anywhere, small town in Texas, large city in New York, and we argue about whether or not a teacher unlocked a school door to go to her car to get a cell phone.

This can go on forever until it just stops (or not). Luckily the Timothy McVie bombing trend didn't continue like school shootings seem to be continuing. Ted Bundy kept killing for a long time.

What happens when someone uses a bomb on school buildings instead of a gun?

That's not to say that gun control isn't a good idea but it's just not the main solution to this particular problem. Nor is turning every school into a police station.

All the talk about an AR15 ban reducing homicides and school shootings is ridiculous. The "ban" really didn't even ban much if you check into what actually happened. It's also probably barking up the wrong tree to focus on the AR15 as that has now seemingly become the America's Sweetheart of the rifle world and many of the reasons for that are quite understandable now that I've checked into it more.

This is going to go as well as the "defund the Police" movement...

 

[Bells]

There weren't many mass school shootings before the ban was enacted (as I pointed out) so there couldn't have been "massive reductions in these events".

The ban reduced the number of mass shootings in general.

You understand this, yes?

The ban ended in 2004 and the first of the mass school shootings didn't begin until 1999 (which was while the ban was in effect).

Then you would be absolutely and categorically wrong in every sense of the word. The first mass school shooting in the US happened in the late 1800's. There were numerous ones since then.

Believe what you want.

Right back at you!

• • Bans on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 bullets have been shown to significantly reduce the frequency and lethality of mass shootings. In particular, when the federal assault weapons ban was in effect between 1994 and 2004, gun massacres resulting in six or more deaths fell by more than one-third. They nearly tripled after the ban expired.

• • Permit-to-purchase laws are known to reduce mass shooting violence. Research shows that in states where gun purchasers are required to be licensed and fingerprinted before obtaining a firearm, mass shootings occur at a much lower rate compared to states without such policies.

• • Extreme risk protection orders, also referred to as red flag laws, allow authorities or family members to petition a court if a loved one is believed to pose a threat to themselves or others, and to request that the person in question be temporarily dispossessed of their firearms. Early research around these orders is encouraging, with people who threatened to commit a mass shooting ultimately not resorting to firearm violence after being subjected to the order.

• • Restrictions on the kinds of firearms those younger than 21 can purchase also offer promise. The alleged Robb Elementary gunman reportedly bought his assault rifles just a few days prior to the shooting, right after he turned 18. Approximately 20% of active shootings at K-12 schools are committed by people between 18 and 20. By limiting this age group to ownership of long guns traditionally used for hunting, mass shootings could be significantly reduced.

• • Finally, as approximately 3 out of 4 school shooters who are under 18 obtain their firearms from home (or a relative’s home), safe storage and child-access-prevention laws — which require that firearms be unloaded and locked when unattended in the home — can be beneficial in preventing school shootings. Broader studies indicate that such laws also reduce gun theft, firearm suicide and unintentional shootings.

It won't play out in court. It's a stupid headline and now we are discussing it. It's irrelevant to the topic. There is too much information but not enough that is accurate or on point.

Ted Bundy "had his reasons" and his mother loved him. Who cares?

Speaking of Ted Bundy, he is probably more relevant to the topic of school shootings. Mass murderers frustrate us, the public, because they are so hard to catch and stop. They go on for years even though people are trying to stop them.

These school shootings are similar. They could crop up anywhere, small town in Texas, large city in New York, and we argue about whether or not a teacher unlocked a school door to go to her car to get a cell phone.

This can go on forever until it just stops (or not). Luckily the Timothy McVie bombing trend didn't continue like school shootings seem to be continuing. Ted Bundy kept killing for a long time.

What happens when someone uses a bomb on school buildings instead of a gun?

That's not to say that gun control isn't a good idea but it's just not the main solution to this particular problem. Nor is turning every school into a police station.

All the talk about an AR15 ban reducing homicides and school shootings is ridiculous. The "ban" really didn't even ban much if you check into what actually happened. It's also probably barking up the wrong tree to focus on the AR15 as that has now seemingly become the America's Sweetheart of the rifle world and many of the reasons for that are quite understandable now that I've checked into it more.

This is going to go as well as the "defund the Police" movement...

Perhaps you should stop changing the subject, coming up with 'what if' scenarios?

 

[Tiassa]

That brings up another point. Is an AR 15 a mass killing weapon or a modern rifle? If you ban AR 15 and don't ban other rifles...why?

All guns are designed to kill so no need to keep bringing that up. Even during the AR 15 ban the manufacturers just made weapons that didn't have the offending parts.

Put an eight-round box in it and it still exceeds its warring predecessor, M1.

The basic difference between a handgun and AR-15 is that compared to transfusing blood and sewing up the internal injuries, patients bleed out too quickly, and in the words of one surgeon after the Pulse Nightclub shooting, there is nothing to sew up.

The AR-15 was designed for the battlefield:

At a distance of approxmately 15 meters, one Ranger fired an AR-15 full automatic hitting one VC with 3 rounds with the first burst. One round in the head—took it completely off. Another in the right arm, took it completely off, too. One round hit him in the right side, causing a hole about five inches in diameter. It cannot be determined which round killed the VC but it can be assumed that any one of the three would hav caused death.

(qtd. in Biddle)​

Another field report notes five VC killed with AR-15s at thirty to a hundred meters. A back wound "caused the thoracic cavity to explode"; a stomach wound "caused the abdominal cavity to explode"; a buttock wound "destroyed all tissue of both buttocks"' a chest wound "destroyed the thoracic cavity"; and a heel wound "causing the leg to split from the foot to the hip". The report observes, "These deaths were inflicted by the AR-15 and all were instantaneous except the buttock wound. He lived approximately five minutes."

Six years ago, Sam Biddle observed↱:

In The Gun, C.J. Chivers' Pulitzer-winning history of the AK-47, he describes the AR-15 as "an American shift in rifles for killing men," and recounts the thousands of Pentagon tests with live animals and cadavers that charted just how well the rifle could blow through internal organs and turn brains into mist on the battlefield.

This is the genetic makeup of the AR-15: It's not a household tool for hunting feral pigs. Nor is it meant for defending yourself against against a home invasion, unless of course a platoon of Viet Cong is invading your home. And although the early AR-15 proved to be mechanically unreliable in Vietnam, its raw killing power, its ability to blow holes through people, is just as clear inside a gay bar in 2016 as it was in a jungle in 1962 ....

.... In mass shootings across the United States, the AR-15 has performed exactly as it was built to perform. It made lethal intent into lethal results, killing and maiming human targets with efficiency and ease. It was an instrument of war, and it turned a nightclub into a war zone. Wherever we allow the gun to go, that war will go on.​

Toward the question of regulation and why not other rifles, we might wonder which killing machines you have in mind. For instance, it would appear a pistol-grip .308 semiautomatic carbine capable of receiving long magazines is readily available. Slightly lesser muzzle velocity, but twice the kinetic energy. Compared to a nine millimeter handgun, over twice the muzzle velocity and seven times the kinetic energy.

Weapons of war are not made to bring down game or plink varmints; they are designed to kill multiple people quickly. A .22 long cartridge for a hunting rifle just doesn't pack the wallop of a 5.66 for an AR-15. The 5.66 pushes over two and a half times the muzzle velocity, and delivers in excess of ten times the kinetic energy. You can actually fire a .22 long from an AR-15, but a 5.66 is too much power for a normal hunting rifle, and fires a heavier bullet. An AR-15 is a mass-killing machine.
____________________

Notes:

Biddle, Sam. "The AR-15 Was Built for Slaughter in War Zones". Gawker. 13 June 2016. Gawker.com. 28 May 2022. https://bit.ly/3lJNzZD

 

[billvon]

I didn't say or imply that Australians are so different that gun control can't be considered here.

Good! So let's consider them.

My point was that you have to get the votes and we don't have the votes even with all the talk of 75% of those in the U.S. being for gun control.

By definition, then, we have the votes. We just have a dysfunctional enough system that those votes don't matter.

We were also talking about mass shootings in schools. Those don't seem to be happening in rural communities

??

Red Lake 2005: Shooter killed 9 schoolkids on a reservation high school near Red Lake.
Nickel Mines 2006: Shooter killed 5 schoolkids in a one-room school in an Amish town.
Grundy 2002: Shooter kills 3 students at the Appalachian School of Law. (Grundy is a town of about 800.)
Umpqua Community College 2015: Shooter kills 9.
Rancho Tehama Reserve 2017: Shooter kills 6 schoolkids.
Chardon, Ohio 2017: Student takes gun to school, kills 3.

I'm sure your post sounds good after a few drinks

Given your above comments - I'd advise you to prioritize research over cocktails.

and homicides occur everywhere and those aren't going up.

Gun homicides in the US have been going up since 2014. Gun deaths are now the #1 cause of death for children from 0-18 - more than car crashes, more than cancer, more than suffocation.

Teenagers killing elementary school kids is the subject and that's what is new and the solution IMO includes gun control regulations and figuring out why this is "suddenly" happening.

Yep. And if you exclude rural areas you exclude almost exactly half the problem. This is not an inner city problem.

 

[Seattle]

Put an eight-round box in it and it still exceeds its warring predecessor, M1.

The basic difference between a handgun and AR-15 is that compared to transfusing blood and sewing up the internal injuries, patients bleed out too quickly, and in the words of one surgeon after the Pulse Nightclub shooting, there is nothing to sew up.

The AR-15 was designed for the battlefield:

At a distance of approxmately 15 meters, one Ranger fired an AR-15 full automatic hitting one VC with 3 rounds with the first burst. One round in the head—took it completely off. Another in the right arm, took it completely off, too. One round hit him in the right side, causing a hole about five inches in diameter. It cannot be determined which round killed the VC but it can be assumed that any one of the three would hav caused death.

(qtd. in Biddle)​

Another field report notes five VC killed with AR-15s at thirty to a hundred meters. A back wound "caused the thoracic cavity to explode"; a stomach wound "caused the abdominal cavity to explode"; a buttock wound "destroyed all tissue of both buttocks"' a chest wound "destroyed the thoracic cavity"; and a heel wound "causing the leg to split from the foot to the hip". The report observes, "These deaths were inflicted by the AR-15 and all were instantaneous except the buttock wound. He lived approximately five minutes."

Six years ago, Sam Biddle observed↱:

In The Gun, C.J. Chivers' Pulitzer-winning history of the AK-47, he describes the AR-15 as "an American shift in rifles for killing men," and recounts the thousands of Pentagon tests with live animals and cadavers that charted just how well the rifle could blow through internal organs and turn brains into mist on the battlefield.

This is the genetic makeup of the AR-15: It's not a household tool for hunting feral pigs. Nor is it meant for defending yourself against against a home invasion, unless of course a platoon of Viet Cong is invading your home. And although the early AR-15 proved to be mechanically unreliable in Vietnam, its raw killing power, its ability to blow holes through people, is just as clear inside a gay bar in 2016 as it was in a jungle in 1962 ....

.... In mass shootings across the United States, the AR-15 has performed exactly as it was built to perform. It made lethal intent into lethal results, killing and maiming human targets with efficiency and ease. It was an instrument of war, and it turned a nightclub into a war zone. Wherever we allow the gun to go, that war will go on.​

Toward the question of regulation and why not other rifles, we might wonder which killing machines you have in mind. For instance, it would appear a pistol-grip .308 semiautomatic carbine capable of receiving long magazines is readily available. Slightly lesser muzzle velocity, but twice the kinetic energy. Compared to a nine millimeter handgun, over twice the muzzle velocity and seven times the kinetic energy.

Weapons of war are not made to bring down game or plink varmints; they are designed to kill multiple people quickly. A .22 long cartridge for a hunting rifle just doesn't pack the wallop of a 5.66 for an AR-15. The 5.66 pushes over two and a half times the muzzle velocity, and delivers in excess of ten times the kinetic energy. You can actually fire a .22 long from an AR-15, but a 5.66 is too much power for a normal hunting rifle, and fires a heavier bullet. An AR-15 is a mass-killing machine.
____________________

Notes:

Biddle, Sam. "The AR-15 Was Built for Slaughter in War Zones". Gawker. 13 June 2016. Gawker.com. 28 May 2022. https://bit.ly/3lJNzZD

Not that it really matters but the AR15 was not designed for the battlefield. It was initially designed for the civilian market in the 1950's. It was later modified for the military market (Vietnam). It can fire the same rounds as any other rifle.

You can use the same rifle for shooting rabbits as for deer by just changing out the "upper" rather than by buying a whole new rifle. Your arguments are just generic arguments for comparing rifles vs pistols.

Most of the arguments are just those that apply to anyone who doesn't believe that there should be any handguns, shotguns or rifles. Maybe there shouldn't be any (?) but to single out the AR15 , which is currently the most popular rifle in the U.S., is a bit disingenuous.

I'd be in favor of trying a (real) ban again along with the other regulations suggested but I can certainly see why the other side views some of these moves as disingenuous (or ignorant).

The real underlying issue (I think) is that half the country doesn't really think that we should allow any (or very few) guns and the other half does. So when there is a school shooting those who don't believe in allowing any guns use that to demand that guns be banned when that's really what they wanted before the school shootings anyway and they know that that's not really the main issue behind school shootings.

We don't react this way to anything else. When people get angry and use a car to mow down a crowd of protestors no one suddenly suggests banning cars. Yet that's exactly what we do regarding guns. It's because they didn't think guns should be legal in the first place.

It would be better to have that direct and more honest debate IMO.

 

[billvon]

So when there is a school shooting those who don't believe in allowing any guns use that to demand that guns be banned

That's a strawman. Almost no one "demands that guns be banned" - certainly not half the US. A great many people - far more than half - are now demanding legislation that restricts gun ownership more than it does now. Thats not banning guns, any more than the drunk-driving laws passed in the 1970's and 1980's came from people wanting to ban cars.

they know that that's not really the main issue behind school shootings.

Easy availability of semiautomatic weapons is indeed one of the largest issues behind school shootings. Take away that easy access and school shootings plummet. As proof, consider the rate of school shootings in basically every other country other than the US.

We don't react this way to anything else. When people get angry and use a car to mow down a crowd of protestors no one suddenly suggests banning cars.

Well, a few do. (I know three of them.) Probably the same percentage of people who demand that we ban all guns after a shooting.

Yet that's exactly what we do regarding guns.

No, we don't.

During the runup of drunk driving deaths in the 1970's and 1980's a lot of new laws were passed. Laws that required bartenders to be more cognizant of serving drunk people. New BAC limits. New penalties. New laws for high risk groups (younger drivers.) Even new design requirements for cars that had the effect of making crashes more survivable for the driver, the car they hit and even the pedestrians they hit. And they worked.

And while plenty of people complained about them - one recent article claimed that "Pedestrian Safety Is Ruining Car Design" - no one tried claiming that their proponents hated cars and wanted to ban them.

And now we are seeing an increase in school shootings, child shootings and gun homicide in general. And people are demanding new laws. Laws that require more careful background checks before selling a gun. Laws requiring universal background checks. Laws restricting magazine size and weapon type and who can buy them. Laws that penalize people who do not store their weapons safely.

But for some reason the same response that was OK for drunk driving is not OK for firearms - because the right wing has been brainwashed by right wing media into thinking that the left wants to grab their guns, and if they pass ANY new laws, the gun grabbers win.

It's because they didn't think guns should be legal in the first place. It would be better to have that direct and more honest debate IMO.

Read those two sentences together - and then let's skip the strawmen and have some direct and honest debate.

 

[Seattle]

That's a strawman. Almost no one "demands that guns be banned" - certainly not half the US. A great many people - far more than half - are now demanding legislation that restricts gun ownership more than it does now. Thats not banning guns, any more than the drunk-driving laws passed in the 1970's and 1980's came from people wanting to ban cars.

Easy availability of semiautomatic weapons is indeed one of the largest issues behind school shootings. Take away that easy access and school shootings plummet. As proof, consider the rate of school shootings in basically every other country other than the US.

Well, a few do. (I know three of them.) Probably the same percentage of people who demand that we ban all guns after a shooting.

No, we don't.

During the runup of drunk driving deaths in the 1970's and 1980's a lot of new laws were passed. Laws that required bartenders to be more cognizant of serving drunk people. New BAC limits. New penalties. New laws for high risk groups (younger drivers.) Even new design requirements for cars that had the effect of making crashes more survivable for the driver, the car they hit and even the pedestrians they hit. And they worked.

And while plenty of people complained about them - one recent article claimed that "Pedestrian Safety Is Ruining Car Design" - no one tried claiming that their proponents hated cars and wanted to ban them.

And now we are seeing an increase in school shootings, child shootings and gun homicide in general. And people are demanding new laws. Laws that require more careful background checks before selling a gun. Laws requiring universal background checks. Laws restricting magazine size and weapon type and who can buy them. Laws that penalize people who do not store their weapons safely.

But for some reason the same response that was OK for drunk driving is not OK for firearms - because the right wing has been brainwashed by right wing media into thinking that the left wants to grab their guns, and if they pass ANY new laws, the gun grabbers win.

Read those two sentences together - and then let's skip the strawmen and have some direct and honest debate.

School shootings have gone up "recently" and the ban ended "recently". School shootings weren't up before the ban. Therefore this is a strawman. This strawman is also the degree to which there was an actual ban that resulted in a lack of similar guns. The ban stopped very little from changing.

Many people do favor more considered regulation. I'd say most but I don't want to argue that point. That's not primarily the issue behind school shootings however and it's not the primary solution IMO.