The U.S.A. Mass Shootings Thread
Discussion
Active shooter alert at Univesity of Nevada: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-6764251...
GliderRider said:
With something like 390 million privately held firearms in the USA, how many would an absolute ban actually remove?
Say the punishment for being found to still have one was life imprisonment, the likelihood is some would still take the chance of keeping their guns, burying them on their land bricking them up in a wall or whatever. If 0.25% of the guns were not handed in, that still leaves 975,000 firearms in private hands.
Removing legally-held guns in the UK was relatively easy, as they were not permitted, in recent times, anyway, for personal protection. In the USA, firstly the mindset needs to change to educate that a gun on the property is a danger not a protection, then that hunting weapons should be that and that alone.
An interesting statistic would be to know how many shots were actually fired by the various mass-killing perpetrators in relation to the number of victims injured or killed. In many cases the number killed or injured seem relatively low given the duration that the shootings went on for and how many people were in the locations in which they occurred. Clearly when the event occurred at close range, even a highly-stressed non-marksman is likely to have shots that find the target, whereas the high vantage point shooter needs to be calm enough and skilled enough to take an accurate shot.
Quite a lot.Say the punishment for being found to still have one was life imprisonment, the likelihood is some would still take the chance of keeping their guns, burying them on their land bricking them up in a wall or whatever. If 0.25% of the guns were not handed in, that still leaves 975,000 firearms in private hands.
Removing legally-held guns in the UK was relatively easy, as they were not permitted, in recent times, anyway, for personal protection. In the USA, firstly the mindset needs to change to educate that a gun on the property is a danger not a protection, then that hunting weapons should be that and that alone.
An interesting statistic would be to know how many shots were actually fired by the various mass-killing perpetrators in relation to the number of victims injured or killed. In many cases the number killed or injured seem relatively low given the duration that the shootings went on for and how many people were in the locations in which they occurred. Clearly when the event occurred at close range, even a highly-stressed non-marksman is likely to have shots that find the target, whereas the high vantage point shooter needs to be calm enough and skilled enough to take an accurate shot.
Not all. But quite a lot.
975,000 versus 390,000,000? That's a vast improvement on now so go do it.
The availability of guns is the problem so address it. If you can find one in a relatives cupboard or go to the shop and get one or probably just look in any general direction and see one then that needs to be stopped doesn't it?
Most mass shootings (certainly the school ones) could've been stopped if there weren't just guns laying about the place or someone willing and able to go and buy as many as they like.
Edited by F1GTRUeno on Wednesday 6th December 22:47
oobster said:
Active shooter alert at Univesity of Nevada: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-6764251...
Vegas campus 4 dead including the shooterhttps://www.reuters.com/world/us/las-vegas-police-...
Whilst in Govt.
Chris Murphey tried a bill: Today I asked my colleagues to pass my universal firearms background checks legislation. It's supported by 90% of Americans and would save thousands of lives.
Republicans blocked it. Three hours later, another mass shooting in UNLV. This carnage is a choice.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1732536378380951833
MKnight702 said:
captain_cynic said:
When assault rifles are used, shootings became faster and deadlier with more people killed than injured. Until the US is willing to admit that basic fact, the killings will continue.
But none of the firearms used in any of your examples are "Assault Rifles" per the definition that you posted a link to. The first sentence is "An assault rifle is a select fire rifle" all the rifles in your example are semi automatic, none are capable of fully automatic fire. The much hated AR-15 fires the same cartridge as the military M4 "assault rifle" and looks similar but looking like something else does not make it the same.The only salient point here, is that there are too many weapons, too many nutters and too many people who refuse to acknowledge a huge problem in the US.
Byker28i said:
Vegas campus 4 dead including the shooter
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/las-vegas-police-...
Whilst in Govt.
Chris Murphey tried a bill: Today I asked my colleagues to pass my universal firearms background checks legislation. It's supported by 90% of Americans and would save thousands of lives.
Republicans blocked it. Three hours later, another mass shooting in UNLV. This carnage is a choice.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1732536378380951833
Its a choice, but any legislation is going to take decades to take effect and many senior republicans don't want to lose their NRA money / and / or God told them otherwise. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/las-vegas-police-...
Whilst in Govt.
Chris Murphey tried a bill: Today I asked my colleagues to pass my universal firearms background checks legislation. It's supported by 90% of Americans and would save thousands of lives.
Republicans blocked it. Three hours later, another mass shooting in UNLV. This carnage is a choice.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1732536378380951833
vaud said:
captain_cynic said:
vaud said:
Its a choice, but any legislation is going to take decades to take effect and many senior republicans don't want to lose their NRA money / and / or God told them otherwise.
That's no excuse for not starting.However I think most Americans want change and it's just a small number of vocal nutters that refuse and are holding everyone else hostage (almost literally). The GOP haven't been able to win a fair election in decades and depend on gerrymandering, voter disenfranchisement and the Electoral Collage to maintain any power, however this is starting to fail them.
captain_cynic said:
I didn't meant that to come across as having a go at you BTW,
I didn't take it that way 
I'm as frustrated as many Americans. I lived there for a while (CA) and have visited many times. Nearly moved back in 2015. Aside from the costs of living in San Francisco, the debate about guns was a factor in not taking up the role.
Having a young child at the time I didn't want lockdown drills to be part of her education. I am not anti-gun (I shoot clay pigeons, have had air-rifles and shot at local competition level) but am pro-controls.
Bathroom_Security said:
vaud said:
Its a choice, but any legislation is going to take decades to take effect and many senior republicans don't want to lose their NRA money / and / or God told them otherwise.
Clowns. A global embarrassment.I'm glad we have stricter control here in the UK.
Would any change in legislation actually move the needle in practice?
Perhaps this is a simplistic perspective, but I think there's strong argument to be made that there's so many guns and ammunition in circulation in the US that any legislation brought in wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference.
It has the feel of trying to re-stuff the contents of pandora's box. The equivalence I would be tempted to draw is that of the UK's knife laws; doesn't stop the nutters tooling up - at all.
I'm not saying that tighter gun control shouldn't be sought, it absolutely should, but as a concept, it's nowhere close to being the magic bullet that some seem to think it is.
Edit: reading back, I realise I'm just repeating the same points that have already been made.
Perhaps this is a simplistic perspective, but I think there's strong argument to be made that there's so many guns and ammunition in circulation in the US that any legislation brought in wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference.
It has the feel of trying to re-stuff the contents of pandora's box. The equivalence I would be tempted to draw is that of the UK's knife laws; doesn't stop the nutters tooling up - at all.
I'm not saying that tighter gun control shouldn't be sought, it absolutely should, but as a concept, it's nowhere close to being the magic bullet that some seem to think it is.
Edit: reading back, I realise I'm just repeating the same points that have already been made.
Edited by TheJimi on Thursday 7th December 11:35
The last thing the shooters need is magic bullets!
I think that the situation is beyond redemption.
I receive daily emails from Republican activists (See post above for an example. my address must be similar to some in the States). These are shrill at the best of times. With an election looming, they're becoming more and more alarming to a limp-wristed Brit like me.
Some of these Republicans are genuinely scary in their outlook on life.
Then, there's the gangs.
In the case of gun control the US is doomed. As are tens of thousands of its citizens.
I think that the situation is beyond redemption.
I receive daily emails from Republican activists (See post above for an example. my address must be similar to some in the States). These are shrill at the best of times. With an election looming, they're becoming more and more alarming to a limp-wristed Brit like me.
Some of these Republicans are genuinely scary in their outlook on life.
Then, there's the gangs.
In the case of gun control the US is doomed. As are tens of thousands of its citizens.
TheJimi said:
Would any change in legislation actually move the needle in practice?
Perhaps this is a simplistic perspective, but I think there's strong argument to be made that there's so many guns and ammunition in circulation in the US that any legislation brought in wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference.
It has the feel of trying to re-stuff the contents of pandora's box. The equivalence I would be tempted to draw is that of the UK's knife laws; doesn't stop the nutters tooling up - at all.
I'm not saying that tighter gun control shouldn't be sought, it absolutely should, but as a concept, it's nowhere close to being the magic bullet that some seem to think it is.
Edit: reading back, I realise I'm just repeating the same points that have already been made.
To answer your first point, yes it would but only over a prolonged period.Perhaps this is a simplistic perspective, but I think there's strong argument to be made that there's so many guns and ammunition in circulation in the US that any legislation brought in wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference.
It has the feel of trying to re-stuff the contents of pandora's box. The equivalence I would be tempted to draw is that of the UK's knife laws; doesn't stop the nutters tooling up - at all.
I'm not saying that tighter gun control shouldn't be sought, it absolutely should, but as a concept, it's nowhere close to being the magic bullet that some seem to think it is.
Edit: reading back, I realise I'm just repeating the same points that have already been made.
Edited by TheJimi on Thursday 7th December 11:35
Its probably a bit like seatbelts over here - when I was a kid in the 70s they weren't even fitted to all cars and you had some dodgy bloke advising you to 'Clunk, Click every trip'.
Over a pretty long period public sentiment has changed and most people wear a seatbelt because the campaign to encourage their use and then legislation to make them compulsory are what those people know.
Same for drink driving.
I think it'd take a lot longer for gun control in the US but eventually you'd get to the point where the majority weren't interested in guns.
It'd probably also help if they didn't appear to have some glamorous, rose tinted view of the past where all the cowboys were goodies and had to defend themselves from whatever the threat was.
Those days are gone and before anyone says something about gangs, etc just remember that there are 390M guns in the US so whenever there's some shooting going on there's a good chance that many onlookers are armed yet how many of them EVER step in as the 'Good Guy With A Gun' and take out the crim?
They probably all stand around, trying to hide the fact that they're armed, while waiting for some overweight Sheriff and Deputy to come along to stand uncomfortably nearby while themselves waiting for the SWAT team to arrive.
Then of course that evening the gun fans will all toddle off to the shooting range and unload some clips at a paper target with the silhouette of a man on it while telling themselves how brilliantly they would've taken out the baddie if only X, Y or Z hadn't occurred.....
5 In a Row said:
Those days are gone and before anyone says something about gangs, etc just remember that there are 390M guns in the US so whenever there's some shooting going on there's a good chance that many onlookers are armed yet how many of them EVER step in as the 'Good Guy With A Gun' and take out the crim?
There is some analysis here : https://www.thetrace.org/2022/06/defensive-gun-use...One big issue in the US is that there are 17,985 police agencies so I would be surprised if the source data was super reliable.
Kowalski655 said:
captain_cynic said:
That's no excuse for not starting.
61 years ago JFK said " We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard", time for some similar sentiments about gunsBlib said:
Kowalski655 said:
captain_cynic said:
That's no excuse for not starting.
61 years ago JFK said " We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard", time for some similar sentiments about guns
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff