The U.S.A. Mass Shootings Thread

[oddman]

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?

To be fair the debate hinges on the competing rights of people to own combat derived weapons and children's right to life. Hardly surprising that things get heated.

[Tankrizzo]

BikeBikeBIke said:

Good point. I think my assumption that countries with no gun laws with have a lot of guns is flawed. It's legal to have a Rolls Royce in almost all countries, that doesn't mean all countries have the same number of Rollers. ...and perhaps the USA is rare in that many of their nutters have a spare 1000 to buy a gun with.

It's not just how easy it is to buy them in some states but just how widespread they are. I daresay in the US most people either own a gun or know someone who does, whereas here I can probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of acquaintances I have with a firearm. Couple that with the fact there are few controls on where you keep a gun in the home, and that a lot of Yanks see a copper entering their home to ensure gun safety as some sort of commie 1984 situation, and it's no wonder they are where they are.

[anonymous-user]

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?

I think we can reasonably infer what his point of view is on gun control.

[ATG]

HM-2 said:

NRS said:

No, he's not ignoring it. You're both arguing from two different stats and solutions - gotoPzero is just saying to fix gun deaths in the US it is much more effective to ban handguns.

Err, that's not what he's saying though:

gotoPzero said:

I get what you are saying. ARs *are* used in some mass shootings but statistically they are some of the least used - handguns account for 60-70% of all mass shooting fatalities. So focusing on just that one firearm is not going to help the situation.

Yes, it's true that handguns account for the majority of mass shooting fatalities, but they account for a far smaller proportion as a percentage of firearms in circulation. Centrefire rifles, or even semi-automatic rifles, in general aren't particularly overrepresented within mass shooting statistics, and yet AR-15 pattern rifles are by a huge amount.

That points to there being something specific with either the weapon, or more likely a particular type of person who has a propensity towards them.

Edited by HM-2 on Friday 27th May 13:42

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.

[BikeBikeBIke]

vaud said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

Good point. I think my assumption that countries with no gun laws with have a lot of guns is flawed. It's legal to have a Rolls Royce in almost all countries, that doesn't mean all countries have the same number of Rollers. ...and perhaps the USA is rare in that many of their nutters have a spare 1000 to buy a gun with.

They don't cost that much. $400 and up.

The point holds true. I doubt Somalia or Afganistan have tight gun controls, but their green ink nutters likely don't have $400 for a cool gun. So even the first requirement for a school shooting is rarely met, in spite of few legal controls.

My question has been answered to my satisfaction: Essentially gun controls are not the only limit on widespread gun ownership.

Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Friday 27th May 14:49

[NMNeil]

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?

They don't have school shooting is Israel. I wonder why?
https://www.foxnews.com/world/armed-teachers-guard...

[AW111]

oddman 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?

To be fair the debate hinges on the competing rights of people to own combat derived weapons and children's right to life. Hardly surprising that things get heated.

And NMNeil repeats his bullst knife crime comparison every single fking time gum control is discussed.

The tree of liberty needs regular watering with the blood of children, or the US will turn into a socialist hell-hole.

[paulguitar]

NMNeil said:

They don't have school shooting is Israel. I wonder why?
https://www.foxnews.com/world/armed-teachers-guard...

You're actually seriously suggesting arming school teachers with guns?

Bet the fun never ends for these kids, totally normal, nothing to see here:

[thewarlock]

NMNeil said:

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?

They don't have school shooting is Israel. I wonder why?
https://www.foxnews.com/world/armed-teachers-guard...

Imagine looking at what happens in the UK, or Oz, where we don't have many guns, and therefore have no school shootings, then looking at Israel, where it's very difficult to acquire a weapon of this sort, requiring months of forms, security checks, training, and they still need armed guards at schools, then posting what you're posted.

It's embarrassing.

[ATG]

oddman 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?

To be fair the debate hinges on the competing rights of people to own combat derived weapons and children's right to life. Hardly surprising that things get heated.

It's really just about the conditional right to own a weapon versus everyone else's rights. The gunman in this case didn't have an unconditional right to own a gun; he had to wait until he was 18. Even in the States the debate is actually about the conditions that have to be met, even if the knuckleheads pretend it's an inalienable human right. You might think it would be possible to discuss those conditions because setting them appropriately would be to the benefit of all reasonable people, and you might think that the gun lobby would want to consider themselves to be "reasonable" people.

[hidetheelephants]

Rewind one or two mass-shootings a minute; it is alleged that a retired federal agent was communicating with the shooter immediately prior to the massacre in Buffalo. WTF?

[AW111]

NMNeil said:

They don't have school shooting is Israel. I wonder why?
https://www.foxnews.com/world/armed-teachers-guard...

As you're clearly ignorant of anything outside the US, have some education : Israel has strict controls around gun ownership.
Lots of guns, but not the free- for-all beloved by Y'All Quaida.

If the US had 1/10 the controls on gun ownership that Israel has, a few less kids might get murdered.

Note that word - MURDERED. Not killed, as if it were a.tragic accident, but deliberately murdered.

[NMNeil]

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?

Thank you, but the standard knee jerk reaction was expected.
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.

[paulguitar]

NMNeil said:

So rather than insult me PH members, what do you suggest to stop the madness of nutters with guns, knives and cars?

Stop deflecting. Just stop it.

[ATG]

NMNeil said:

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?

They don't have school shooting is Israel. I wonder why?
https://www.foxnews.com/world/armed-teachers-guard...

That is such a shatteringly stupid comparison.

The threat in Israel comes from a political conflict that produces suicidal terrorists. The threat in the States comes from irresponsible people being allowed to own firearms.

The Israelis are in a position where they have little choice but to respond to a physical threat given they are de facto incapable of extracting themselves from a regional political mess.

Americans on the other hand could choose to disarm their lunatics. They don't have to engage in an arms race with their fellow citizens. It's a choice.

[thewarlock]

NMNeil said:

Thank you, but the standard knee jerk reaction was expected.
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.

Another mind-bendingly stupid comparison. The fact that Jake Davison was reponsible for the deaths of 5 other people, and that this was the first mass shooting in the country in 11 years, tells you that vetting doesn't work, when compared with the US, where there was a mass shooting this week. And last week, and in fact, there are mass shootings in the USA, with the same number of deaths as the case that you mention literally every single day

[gotoPzero]

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.

So if you are going to go and buy a rifle do you buy a rifle you don't know how to shoot, clean, maintain etc or do you buy one you perhaps have years of experience on type?

I know which I would do. Added to that your average AR15 is cheap and can be bought pretty much any where excluding 3 states.

It will be interesting to see how things change once the M4 is dropped. Sig have just got the contract to make the XM5 which is a totally different rifle to the M4 and chambered in 6.8mm so this may play a part in years to come.

I expect the popularity of the 5.56 and the AR15 will decline and we will see civilian variants of the XM5 take over. We have already seen a big move towards 6.5 in the competition shooting arena.

Its also very interesting that the .280cal intermediate cartridge selected is firmly in the hunting range..... like you say why don't the Army have hunting rifles...well from 2025 they will!

[unident]

NMNeil said:

Thank you, but the standard knee jerk reaction was expected.
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.

Picking incidents that are a once in a decade or longer event to try to justify the weekly mass shootings in the US is ridiculous.

Show me a weekly mass shooting list in any five First World countries that you’d like to pick and I’ll give your argument some more consideration.

Whilst you’re at it, would you care to answer the question I posed a few pages back

[ATG]

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?

Thank you, but the standard knee jerk reaction was expected.
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.

We haven't "effectively banned guns" in the UK at all. Having a vetting procedure is the antithesis of a ban. The vetting procedure is a means to obtaining a firearm. You might as well say a driving test is effectively banning driving.

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.

[the tribester]

NMNeil said:

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.

With all the vetting in the UK, how many Jake Davison incidents have there been in the UK in 2022?, none, compare that with the number of school mass shootings in the US in 2022 so far. It's got to be worth some sort of additional gun control surely.