The U.S.A. Mass Shootings Thread

[Byker28i]

As said previously, the landowners on whose land trump wants to build a wall don't want it, don't want their land seized.

Trump's emergency declaration just got its first legal challenge. Legal advocacy group Public Citizen has filed suit on behalf of landowners in Texas and an environmental group. More lawsuits are expected.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/fi...

[Byker28i]

NY Times also has the story

Courts have been grappling for at least a decade with lawsuits involving the Secure Fence Act of 2006, legislation passed under former President George W. Bush that authorized the construction of about 700 miles of barriers and fencing along the border with Mexico. Dozens of lawsuits filed by property owners challenging that project are still unresolved.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/15/us/border-wall-...

[Byker28i]

I thought this was a National Emergency? He has time to holiday and play golf?

Trump went to Mar-a-Lago this weekend and today has arrived at Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, FL.

This is Trump's 169th day at a Trump golf club and 224th day at a Trump property as president.

[rscott]

Wrong thread Byker....

[MartG]

One thankfully nipped in the bud

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/i-am-dreaming-of...

[Ructions]

Thursday was a particularly violent day in Baltimore, with 12 people shot, four fatally, in a series of seven incidents. But the numbers are not unprecedented.

When it comes to tracking record-setting crime incidents, Baltimore police’s public data is recorded in such a way that makes it difficult to pinpoint the city’s most violent days.

But according to police data posted on Open Baltimore, which contains crime statistics dating back to 2012, Thursday tied with at least two other dates believed to be among the highest documented number of shootings in single day.

[Saleen836]

11 year old shoots his dad for taking away his video games...
http://www.newser.com/story/272253/police-boy-11-s...

[Last Visit]

http://news.sky.com/story/new-zealand-bans-militar...

No mention of more guns for mosques, no mention of armed security on every floor.

The country covered in this thread could learn a lot.

[j_4m]

What is a 'military style semi-auto weapon', other than a deliberately obfuscated definition?

[Halb]

Last Visit said:

http://news.sky.com/story/new-zealand-bans-militar...

No mention of more guns for mosques, no mention of armed security on every floor.

The country covered in this thread could learn a lot.

A lotm probably could.
Just seen this on the news.
I recall watching something that showed how a bullet from something like an assault rifle causes so much more damage than a less powerful weapon, like a pistol or similar. Doctors (and victims obviously) have more issues with it, since the internal damage is on a large magnitude.

[dvs_dave]

Halb said:

Last Visit said:

http://news.sky.com/story/new-zealand-bans-militar...

No mention of more guns for mosques, no mention of armed security on every floor.

The country covered in this thread could learn a lot.

A lotm probably could.
Just seen this on the news.
I recall watching something that showed how a bullet from something like an assault rifle causes so much more damage than a less powerful weapon, like a pistol or similar. Doctors (and victims obviously) have more issues with it, since the internal damage is on a large magnitude.

On the whole this is a good thing as no civilian in a civilised country has a legitimate need to own military style firearms. Although it is rather knee jerk as it won’t stop mass murders from happening again. The reality is that psychopaths so inclined to commit such atrocities will just turn to other (sadly proven) equally effective methods. Explosives, truck ram raids, etc. Identifying these people before they do any significant harm is where the effort needs to be spent.

[Scobblelotcher]

dvs_dave said:

Halb said:

Last Visit said:

http://news.sky.com/story/new-zealand-bans-militar...

No mention of more guns for mosques, no mention of armed security on every floor.

The country covered in this thread could learn a lot.

A lotm probably could.
Just seen this on the news.
I recall watching something that showed how a bullet from something like an assault rifle causes so much more damage than a less powerful weapon, like a pistol or similar. Doctors (and victims obviously) have more issues with it, since the internal damage is on a large magnitude.

On the whole this is a good thing as no civilian in a civilised country has a legitimate need to own military style firearms. Although it is rather knee jerk as it won’t stop mass murders from happening again. The reality is that psychopaths so inclined to commit such atrocities will just turn to other (sadly proven) equally effective methods. Explosives, truck ram raids, etc. Identifying these people before they do any significant harm is where the effort needs to be spent.

Guns have no equal when it comes to items that are intended to kill with unless the person knows how to build a sophisticated bomb.

Tightening controls of the more effective weapons is the only logical choice in this situation, there is no legitimate reason for a civilian owning a ‘assault type’ of weapon.

All of the western world (with the exception of the US) has proven that weapon restriction is very effective in reducing (not stopping) mass murders.

Finally, the reason the killer choose NZ was because he was banned from owning weapons in Australia and couldn’t gain access to them, which really proves the point.

[rscott]

Scobblelotcher said:

dvs_dave said:

Halb said:

Last Visit said:

http://news.sky.com/story/new-zealand-bans-militar...

No mention of more guns for mosques, no mention of armed security on every floor.

The country covered in this thread could learn a lot.

A lotm probably could.
Just seen this on the news.
I recall watching something that showed how a bullet from something like an assault rifle causes so much more damage than a less powerful weapon, like a pistol or similar. Doctors (and victims obviously) have more issues with it, since the internal damage is on a large magnitude.

On the whole this is a good thing as no civilian in a civilised country has a legitimate need to own military style firearms. Although it is rather knee jerk as it won’t stop mass murders from happening again. The reality is that psychopaths so inclined to commit such atrocities will just turn to other (sadly proven) equally effective methods. Explosives, truck ram raids, etc. Identifying these people before they do any significant harm is where the effort needs to be spent.

Guns have no equal when it comes to items that are intended to kill with unless the person knows how to build a sophisticated bomb.

Tightening controls of the more effective weapons is the only logical choice in this situation, there is no legitimate reason for a civilian owning a ‘assault type’ of weapon.

All of the western world (with the exception of the US) has proven that weapon restriction is very effective in reducing (not stopping) mass murders.

Finally, the reason the killer choose NZ was because he was banned from owning weapons in Australia and couldn’t gain access to them, which really proves the point.

Don't say "assault type" - you'll have a certain poster pop up telling you they're not assault weapons because they don't have burst and full auto modes.
That happens in every thread mentioning gun laws

[j_4m]

rscott said:

Don't say "assault type" - you'll have a certain poster pop up telling you they're not assault weapons because they don't have burst and full auto modes.
That happens in every thread mentioning gun laws

And he’s right. It’s literally scare tactic bks, like labelling something ‘military style’.

[dvs_dave]

j_4m said:

rscott said:

Don't say "assault type" - you'll have a certain poster pop up telling you they're not assault weapons because they don't have burst and full auto modes.
That happens in every thread mentioning gun laws

And he’s right. It’s literally scare tactic bks, like labelling something ‘military style’.

Stick with semantics, that way you don’t have to look at the big picture.

[DurianIceCream]

Halb said:

A lotm probably could.
Just seen this on the news.
I recall watching something that showed how a bullet from something like an assault rifle causes so much more damage than a less powerful weapon, like a pistol or similar. Doctors (and victims obviously) have more issues with it, since the internal damage is on a large magnitude.

Rifle bullets cause more damage than pistol bullets because they travel about 3 times as fast. Most pistol bullets are subsonic. Rifle bullets are about Mach 2.5

In the land of rifle bullets, assault rifle bullets are less powerful than the ammunition commonly and routinely used by target shooters and hunters. Infact the standard assault rifle caliber is banned for hunting things like deer as it is not powerful enough.

[DurianIceCream]

dvs_dave said:

On the whole this is a good thing as no civilian in a civilised country has a legitimate need to own military style firearms. Although it is rather knee jerk as it won’t stop mass murders from happening again. The reality is that psychopaths so inclined to commit such atrocities will just turn to other (sadly proven) equally effective methods. Explosives, truck ram raids, etc. Identifying these people before they do any significant harm is where the effort needs to be spent.

They are only cosmetically similar to military firearms. The are not functionally similar. Military firearms which look cosmetically similar to the NZ massacre firearms are either fully automatic or capable of burst fire. Civilian firearms are not.

There are plenty of legitimate target shooting reasons (or even hunting reasons) to own a firearm which look cosmetically similar to a military rifle. You just think there is no legitimate reason, because chances are you don't shoot and don't know much about recreational shooters.

Since we are on a UK website and we are talking firearms which are cosmetically similar but functionally different to military firearms, then you can quite legally buy in the UK a rifle which looks just like the NZ massacre rifle.

rscott said:

Don't say "assault type" - you'll have a certain poster pop up telling you they're not assault weapons because they don't have burst and full auto modes.
That happens in every thread mentioning gun laws

Well it's a bit like painting your house isn't it. You think all guns which look about the same are the same just because of cosmetic appearance. So when you go down to B&Q to buy some paint to paint the outside of your house, you can just buy any old paint. Infact you could buy some good priced paint with pleasing pictures of a comfortable bedroom on the tin. Paint is paint; it all looks the same and comes in the same shape tin. Only 3 months after you paint your house, it all flakes off because you have bought interior paint, not exterior paint. While cosmetically similar and still called paint, it is functionally totally different.

If you want to just ignore basic functional differences when making decisions, then you don't get far do you?

Edited by DurianIceCream on Friday 22 March 03:37

[John145]

When a rifle can fire as fast as you can move your index finger forwards and backwards 10mm then this is in reality fully automatic. Also this type of weapon has no place in civilian life. No practical requirement whatsoever.

[dvs_dave]

DurianIceCream said:

They are only cosmetically similar to military firearms. The are not functionally similar. Military firearms which look cosmetically similar to the NZ massacre firearms are either fully automatic or capable of burst fire. Civilian firearms are not.

There are plenty of legitimate target shooting reasons (or even hunting reasons) to own a firearm which look cosmetically similar to a military rifle. You just think there is no legitimate reason, because chances are you don't shoot and don't know much about recreational shooters.

Since we are on a UK website and we are talking firearms which are cosmetically similar but functionally different to military firearms, then you can quite legally buy in the UK a rifle which looks just like the NZ massacre rifle.

The AR-15 with high capacity magazines strikes again. Burst/full auto versions of which are common place with military and law enforcement. Civilian market semi-auto versions of which can (albeit not that easily) be modified to full auto. But readily available (for now) bump stocks handily get around that particular problem by giving civilian semi-auto versions similar performance to full auto military version. Is it really that hard to understand why the obvious “military style” moniker has come about?

Anyway, even a semi auto can rapid fire.....basically as quick as you can physically pull the trigger, until your magazine is empty. There is no legitimate need for a “sportsman” shooter to need this functionality given the devastation misuse can so easily cause. It’s this rapid sustained fire “military style” functionality coupled with high capacity magazines that’s the issue.

A sensible move would be to restrict civilian semi-auto firearms to a maximum of 6 shots before needing to be reloaded, and/or an automatic delay (say 10s) with manual reset requiring both hands to perform is imposed before being able to fire the next 6 rounds. This will not appreciably affect the functionality for the legitimate sportsman shooter, but it’ll make it a hell of a lot harder to successfully carry out a mass murder with one.

Edited by dvs_dave on Friday 22 March 05:08

[DurianIceCream]

John145 said:

When a rifle can fire as fast as you can move your index finger forwards and backwards 10mm then this is in reality fully automatic. Also this type of weapon has no place in civilian life. No practical requirement whatsoever.

If there is no practical requirement, why is the practical shooting discipline and accepted good reason to own a semi-auto rifle in the UK? It's also an accepted good reason to own an AR-15 in countries which still allow them, which is most of continental Europe.

As I said on the other thread, just be honest and say you don't like them and want them banned. There's no point pretending there are no shooting disciplines where semi-autos aren't used, since clearly there are.