The U.S.A. Mass Shootings Thread
Discussion
https://twitter.com/importantmeagan/status/1529807...
"she always brushed her teeth" is one of the most devastating things i have ever heard. this is where these kids were at in their lives. and they were taken out because our country's leadership cares more about gun sales than they do about children."
"she always brushed her teeth" is one of the most devastating things i have ever heard. this is where these kids were at in their lives. and they were taken out because our country's leadership cares more about gun sales than they do about children."
Uvalde has a population of 15,000 and has an entire SWAT team. 40% of the town budget goes on the police.
Who stood outside the school for around an hour holding parents back. I would run through a f
king wall if my daughter was in there.
I live in a small town of 12,000 people. Occasionally we see a police car, and sometimes the odd PCSO wandering around chatting to residents. Precisely zero mass shootings have happened here. I can't think why that would be.
Who stood outside the school for around an hour holding parents back. I would run through a f
king wall if my daughter was in there. I live in a small town of 12,000 people. Occasionally we see a police car, and sometimes the odd PCSO wandering around chatting to residents. Precisely zero mass shootings have happened here. I can't think why that would be.
take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:
NMNeil said:
So rather than insult me PH members, what do you suggest to stop the madness of nutters with guns, knives and cars? We know the problem, so come up with a solution rather than just sit in your chair throwing unwarranted insults.
Wait... Wait... I know this one. Put the knives on the wheels and the guns on the wings and race for freedom. The US has a clear problem with nutters, IMO, this is more of an indictment of their healthcare (oh how we laugh) system. This coupled with an unwillingness to tackle the fact that anyone with a clean(ish) record can just wonder down to the store and purchase any semi-automatic pistol or rifle that takes their fancy (background checks allowing).
The US needs to tackle the root of the problem, the OWNERS, not the tool. Legislate tighter controls on who can purchase what, maybe with graduated licences. So a small caliber pistol and shotgun as default permissions (adequate for personal defense, plus taking everything away is a non starter). Then once training and vetting is passed you can graduate to larger calibers and rifles. Don't restrict the guns, restrict who can have them.
It's a simpler sell to the American public as well. Tell them that the Government want to take away their guns is likely to cause much more of an issue than saying, you can keep your guns, we just won't allow a nutter to have them.
Gweeds said:
Uvalde has a population of 15,000 and has an entire SWAT team. 40% of the town budget goes on the police.
Who stood outside the school for around an hour holding parents back. I would run through a fking wall if my daughter was in there.
I live in a small town of 12,000 people. Occasionally we see a police car, and sometimes the odd PCSO wandering around chatting to residents. Precisely zero mass shootings have happened here. I can't think why that would be.
Do you think people in your village still want to kill school children (they just don't have AR15s to do it)?Who stood outside the school for around an hour holding parents back. I would run through a f
king wall if my daughter was in there. I live in a small town of 12,000 people. Occasionally we see a police car, and sometimes the odd PCSO wandering around chatting to residents. Precisely zero mass shootings have happened here. I can't think why that would be.
simo1863 said:
ATG said:
It's not about the individual model of rifle. It's about what it is designed to do and where it sits in people's imagination. AR-15 or any other form of assault or battle rifle ALL differ from a hunting rifle in the same way. The latter are all about being able to place single shots accurately, the former are all about being able to attack or defend against people who are similarly armed. So, no, no army is going to be equipped with anything like a hunting rifle even if the military rifle happens to be chambered for a round you could also use to kill a deer.
A lot of hunting is done with old military rifles, assault or battle rifles of yesteryear, and likewise, there's a lot of footage of soldiers in Ukraine with common hunting rifles (seen quite a few Savage 110s and even a Sauer and Steyr Scout).Besides, AR-15s are perfect for some types of hunting, especially coyotes or hogs.
MKnight702 said:
Well obviously, it must be the fault of the inanimate object, so clearly we should ban knives, guns and cars.
The US has a clear problem with nutters, IMO, this is more of an indictment of their healthcare (oh how we laugh) system. This coupled with an unwillingness to tackle the fact that anyone with a clean(ish) record can just wonder down to the store and purchase any semi-automatic pistol or rifle that takes their fancy (background checks allowing).
The US needs to tackle the root of the problem, the OWNERS, not the tool. Legislate tighter controls on who can purchase what, maybe with graduated licences. So a small caliber pistol and shotgun as default permissions (adequate for personal defense, plus taking everything away is a non starter). Then once training and vetting is passed you can graduate to larger calibers and rifles. Don't restrict the guns, restrict who can have them.
It's a simpler sell to the American public as well. Tell them that the Government want to take away their guns is likely to cause much more of an issue than saying, you can keep your guns, we just won't allow a nutter to have them.
You say it's a simpler sell, but the Republicans in the senate won't even allow a vote on background checks.The US has a clear problem with nutters, IMO, this is more of an indictment of their healthcare (oh how we laugh) system. This coupled with an unwillingness to tackle the fact that anyone with a clean(ish) record can just wonder down to the store and purchase any semi-automatic pistol or rifle that takes their fancy (background checks allowing).
The US needs to tackle the root of the problem, the OWNERS, not the tool. Legislate tighter controls on who can purchase what, maybe with graduated licences. So a small caliber pistol and shotgun as default permissions (adequate for personal defense, plus taking everything away is a non starter). Then once training and vetting is passed you can graduate to larger calibers and rifles. Don't restrict the guns, restrict who can have them.
It's a simpler sell to the American public as well. Tell them that the Government want to take away their guns is likely to cause much more of an issue than saying, you can keep your guns, we just won't allow a nutter to have them.
unident said:
hidetheelephants said:
Vetting may work if it is done properly, but it is not; Hamilton slaughtered children in a school in 1996 with guns he should not have possessed due to being unfit. After the tabloid-pleasing handgun ban no real effort was made to correct this regulatory failing and it's been repeated many times since, most recently with Jake Davison. firearms officers are too few in number, there seems to be little oversight and no means by which to compel GPs to respond in a timely manner(or at all).
What’s been “repeated many times since”? Certainly not mass shootings in the UK. The worst instances subsequently were mainly NI related as far as I can see
The NRA is a cancer and the medicine the US needs is campaign finance reform; ban lobbying of this kind, restrict the amount of money raised, size of donations and who it can be donated by. Mitt Romney etc are hardly likely to vote for gun reform when the NRA are paying them millions of dollars?
MKnight702 said:
Well obviously, it must be the fault of the inanimate object, so clearly we should ban knives, guns and cars.
The US has a clear problem with nutters, IMO, this is more of an indictment of their healthcare (oh how we laugh) system. This coupled with an unwillingness to tackle the fact that anyone with a clean(ish) record can just wonder down to the store and purchase any semi-automatic pistol or rifle that takes their fancy (background checks allowing).
The US needs to tackle the root of the problem, the OWNERS, not the tool. Legislate tighter controls on who can purchase what, maybe with graduated licences. So a small caliber pistol and shotgun as default permissions (adequate for personal defense, plus taking everything away is a non starter). Then once training and vetting is passed you can graduate to larger calibers and rifles. Don't restrict the guns, restrict who can have them.
It's a simpler sell to the American public as well. Tell them that the Government want to take away their guns is likely to cause much more of an issue than saying, you can keep your guns, we just won't allow a nutter to have them.
Pretty certain that-“background checks permitting” is a complete myth and people can dodge that requirement with ease based on where they buy their gun(s)The US has a clear problem with nutters, IMO, this is more of an indictment of their healthcare (oh how we laugh) system. This coupled with an unwillingness to tackle the fact that anyone with a clean(ish) record can just wonder down to the store and purchase any semi-automatic pistol or rifle that takes their fancy (background checks allowing).
The US needs to tackle the root of the problem, the OWNERS, not the tool. Legislate tighter controls on who can purchase what, maybe with graduated licences. So a small caliber pistol and shotgun as default permissions (adequate for personal defense, plus taking everything away is a non starter). Then once training and vetting is passed you can graduate to larger calibers and rifles. Don't restrict the guns, restrict who can have them.
It's a simpler sell to the American public as well. Tell them that the Government want to take away their guns is likely to cause much more of an issue than saying, you can keep your guns, we just won't allow a nutter to have them.
The Rotrex Kid said:
NMNeil said:
And if you can't get a gun here in the US, just like the UK they turn to knives.
https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/multiple-s...
It's like clockwork. https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/multiple-s...
ks. You can't kill a dozen people from 120m with a Sabatier.
BikeBikeBIke said:
Why are school shootings such an American problem? There must be plenty of countries where guns are a free-for-for all and (unless the media are missing it) their nutters aren't doing this.
Theories?
There are a few reasons... Firstly were more likely to hear of it in the media when it happens in the US than say Nigeria or Guatamala. Theories?
But the next highest number of school shootings in the last 13 odd years is Mexico with 8, down from the US's 200 odd.
I think a big problem is the culture. Not just gun culture but their school culture designed to reward vapidity and compliance and punish anyone who's different. So treat someone as a pariah, then give them easy acces to guns and the notion that might makes right and we're surprised that they shoot up the school that shunned them?
Add this to the recent rise in the far right wing empowering losers.
Ultimately the US needs to change at a cultural level and I think it by and large wants to. It's a small minority that is holding them to ransom.
MKnight702 said:
it looks similar to the M4 which is a military firearm but that's it.
I mean not really, they're for the most part near-identical with a great degree of parts interchangeability. One is capable of automatic fire, the other isn't- and that's the only real difference- essentially, it's all in the fire control group and bolt/bolt carrier. MKnight702 said:
Which of the two rifles below would you ban?
Why are AR-15s so massively overrepresented in mass shooting statistics whereas Mini-14s- and, for that matter, other semi-automatic centrefire rifles- not? There's lots of AK-type clones in the US...weirdly, much less represented than AR-15s in mass shooting statistics. Semi-automatics chambered in .308? Same story- plenty in circulation, not exactly common in mass shootings. Yes, at the end of the day it's the meat behind the trigger that's responsible, but the statistics are pretty telling here.
Castrol for a knave said:
The Rotrex Kid said:
NMNeil said:
And if you can't get a gun here in the US, just like the UK they turn to knives.
https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/multiple-s...
It's like clockwork. https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/multiple-s...
ks. You can't kill a dozen people from 120m with a Sabatier.
Edited by HM-2 on Friday 27th May 17:22
gotoPzero said:
ATG said:
Indeed, and its exactly the same reason that people chose to buy AR-15s for self-defence. They are compact, light, semi-automatic, large capacity magazines are standard. They aren't very accurate at long range. They're designed for shooting things nearby and are usually fitted with sights that let you quickly aim and shoot at close targets. They are designed to do a particular job and they're very good at it and that's what people buy them for. And that's before you start considering the "coolness" factor and the army fantasy bollcoks. Anyone saying AR-15s and similarly designed guns are no more or less of a threat than any other type of gun might want to explain why you don't equip the army with hunting rifles. The more effective a weapon is, the more dangerous it is when misused. It is rather odd to try to argue otherwise.
I think something you have to remember is roughly 15% of all males in the United States currently alive have military experience and are trained on the M4. Thats a lot of people.HM-2 said:
Why are AR-15s so massively overrepresented
Some interesting stats https://everytownresearch.org/maps/mass-shootings-...
MKnight702 said:
ATG said:
It's not about the individual model of rifle. It's about what it is designed to do and where it sits in people's imagination. AR-15 or any other form of assault or battle rifle ALL differ from a hunting rifle in the same way. The latter are all about being able to place single shots accurately, the former are all about being able to attack or defend against people who are similarly armed. So, no, no army is going to be equipped with anything like a hunting rifle even if the military rifle happens to be chambered for a round you could also use to kill a deer.
You have been sadly misinformed. The AR-15 is neither an assault rifle or "battle rifle" it looks similar to the M4 which is a military firearm but that's it.Which of the two rifles below would you ban?
Clue, they both shoot the same cartridge, they both take the same magazines, they are both semi automatic with similar rates of fire. The main difference is the top one is in pole position on the "guns to ban" list because it looks scary, the bottom one doesn't get a second look as it looks like granddad's hunting rifle.
I repeat my statement that the rifle does not trigger the crime, make the AR-15 magically vanish and the shooters would simply choose something else. The problem is the person holding the gun not the gun they are holding. Stop selling guns to unsuitable people and the problem will reduce (not go away, that's a point for another day).
If you look at statistics that speeding motorists mostly drive Audis it should not lead you to the conclusion to ban selling Audis. The problem is the driver, not the car.
Edited by MKnight702 on Friday 27th May 16:09
An AR-15 and an M4 are vastly more similar to each other than they are to a bolt action rifle. To say the only similarity between an AR-15 and an M4 is their "looks" is ridiculous.
As to "which would I ban", neither of them. I haven't called for AR-15s to be banned. I'd suggest putting some proper vetting in place for BOTH of them. Anyone who says "I need an AR-15 (or any other semi-automatic rifle) to defend myself" doesn't get to have one because they've already demonstrated that they're deluded. Valid reason to have one might be "I like them, I know how to use them, I'm a member of a rifle club with a suitable range and I'll keep it there because they've got a secure armoury. My doctor will tell you that I'm not mentally ill and I can provide some credible character witnesses who'll say I don't start fantasising about killing people every time I get drunk."
In reality what I consider to be proper vetting would massively reduce the number of AR-15s in the States, so the practical difference between a ban and proper vetting would be pretty small for all those who are calling for a ban, and I doubt those people would actually care if a small number were still owned privately by responsible individuals. In reality, they wouldn't know the guns were there. For example, it might come as a surprise to some that plenty of British high schools have rifle ranges and use a mix of bolt action and what you could colloquially call "modified SA-80 assault rifles". Try googling "CCF rifle range school UK". It's all done safely and responsibly, so you never hear about it unless you're directly involved.
ATG said:
NMNeil said:
gotoPzero said:
Gweeds said:
Note how MNeil says nothing about the kids and teachers killed.
Because he’s more interested in guns than lives.
Dude come on you don't even know the guy lets keep it to friendly banter?Because he’s more interested in guns than lives.
I'm not pro gun, don't belong to the NRA, consider the bible a work of fiction and am a firm believer in keeping guns, knives and cars out of the hands of people who can't be trusted with a deadly weapon, no matter what that weapon or potential weapon is.
But every time a nutter goes on a rampage and killing spree with a gun the media are all over it with cries of "ban guns". This was the same reaction in the UK and Australia, so they effectively banned guns with only those who had been thoroughly vetted being allowed to own one, such as Jake Davison, showing that vetting doesn't work.
So rather than insult me PH members, what do you suggest to stop the madness of nutters with guns, knives and cars? We know the problem, so come up with a solution rather than just sit in your chair throwing unwarranted insults.
As to its effectiveness, look at the statistics. Pulling a single incident out and saying "proves it doesn't work" is ridiculous. Look at the numbers in aggregate.
It is obvious that people do not substitute knives or cars or cans of petrol or poison for guns and then go on the rampage anyway. It just doesn't happen. Look at the number of mass murders in the States compared to mass murders in other developed countries.
Giving a lunatic an effective tool to use makes them more dangerous. It is crazy to claim otherwise.
Next
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff