Jump to content

630 *mass shootings this year


Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

so the topic of the thread (it's right in the title) is about mass shootings... no whataboutisms 

some can't seem to stay focused

What is an assault rifle to you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 30 round magazine used by AR-15's is called a STANAG magazine which stands for Standardization Agreement. These are not large capacity magazines. They are the standard size in NATO countries.

You can ban standard capacity magazines and try to limit them to less rounds like they do in Canada but you will find that moves like that only hurt law abiding people and does little to deter a criminal from hurting or killing people 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tomas. said:

A 30 round magazine used by AR-15's is called a STANAG magazine which stands for Standardization Agreement. These are not large capacity magazines. They are the standard size in NATO countries.

You can ban standard capacity magazines and try to limit them to less rounds like they do in Canada but you will find that moves like that only hurt law abiding people and does little to deter a criminal from hurting or killing people 

You provide way too much common sense, and legit information, for a thread like this :bc:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

as is yours...

which of these gives you an erection?

rifles.jpg

 

All 3, but I'd do away with the carry handle.

I'd like to get a lever action but there is no room in the safe for more.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

as is yours...

which of these gives you an erection?

rifles.jpg

 

I'll take #1 in 6.5 Creedmoor. I only need 1 shot :lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we going to ban pressure cookers because some people used them as bombs and killed a bunch of people? Are we going to ban vehicle renting outfits like U-Haul because someone rented a van and drove into a crowd of people and killed some? Are we going to ban air travel because they have been hijacked and flown into buildings and killed people? 

Bans do not work against criminals. They will always find away. In the UK where they banned guns (for the most part with some exceptions) knifings went through the roof. On top of that they still have a large amount of shootings, they just aren't widely publicized. Do we then go like New Zealand and ban knifes there because a guy stole a knife off a store shelf and killed 9 people?

The argument of banning this gun or that gun based on looks and emotions does not solve issues. There are other options, lots of options to create death. Hell, you can build your own direct blowback submachine gun with stuff from the hardware store. 

The prime minister of Japan was killed with an improvised gun. How did their basically country wide gun ban prevent that?

Criminals will always criminal. We need to stop focusing on the object used and start putting real dollars into the person using the object.

In Canada 90%ish of guns used in crimes were smuggled illegally into the country. 

They made AR-15's prohibited devices among the pile of other semi-automatic firearms that were legal and also hand guns were banned for sale and transfer. They are trying to ban all semi autos. The cost of confiscation and the bans will be over 5 billion dollars.

There are scanning machines like the one the Grand Cayman just got that scans for everything. Guns, drugs, all contraband.

What would be better for public safety. Taking firearms from legal owners (because the criminals won't be turning their in) or instead use the money that would be spent on gun bans and confiscation and use it to buy 10 of those scanning machines for everyone of Canada's 119 ports of entry?

Edited by Tomas.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

AAST 2018 PODIUM PAPER

Changes in US mass shooting deaths associated with the 1994–2004 federal assault weapons ban: Analysis of open-source data

DiMaggio, Charles PhD, MPH; Avraham, Jacob MD; Berry, Cherisse MD; Bukur, Marko MD; Feldman, Justin ScD; Klein, Michael MD; Shah, Noor MD; Tandon, Manish MD; Frangos, Spiros MD, MPH

Author Information

Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 86(1):p 11-19, January 2019. | DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000002060

BUY

CME TEST

Metrics

Abstract

BACKGROUND 

A federal assault weapons ban has been proposed as a way to reduce mass shootings in the United States. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 made the manufacture and civilian use of a defined set of automatic and semiautomatic weapons and large capacity magazines illegal. The ban expired in 2004. The period from 1994 to 2004 serves as a single-arm pre-post observational study to assess the effectiveness of this policy intervention.

METHODS 

Mass shooting data for 1981 to 2017 were obtained from three well-documented, referenced, and open-source sets of data, based on media reports. We calculated the yearly rates of mass shooting fatalities as a proportion of total firearm homicide deaths and per US population. We compared the 1994 to 2004 federal ban period to non-ban periods, using simple linear regression models for rates and a Poison model for counts with a year variable to control for trend. The relative effects of the ban period were estimated with odds ratios.

RESULTS 

Assault rifles accounted for 430 or 85.8% of the total 501 mass-shooting fatalities reported (95% confidence interval, 82.8–88.9) in 44 mass-shooting incidents. Mass shootings in the United States accounted for an increasing proportion of all firearm-related homicides (coefficient for year, 0.7; p = 0.0003), with increment in year alone capturing over a third of the overall variance in the data (adjusted R2 = 0.3). In a linear regression model controlling for yearly trend, the federal ban period was associated with a statistically significant 9 fewer mass shooting related deaths per 10,000 firearm homicides (p = 0.03). Mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the federal ban period (relative rate, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.22–0.39).

CONCLUSION 

Mass-shooting related homicides in the United States were reduced during the years of the federal assault weapons ban of 1994 to 2004.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 

Observational, level II/IV.

https://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Abstract/2019/01000/Changes_in_US_mass_shooting_deaths_associated_with.2.aspx

Why do think the mass shootings with rifles went up after the ban? Could it be that ar15s can be made cheaper and that made them cheaper to buy, not because they are scsry weapons of war? Since you like statistics so much, with almost 20 million ar15s in the country and according to usa today's fact check from 21 only 11 of 12 mass shootings since 2012 involved ar15s. The gun doesn't seem to be the problem....

Screenshot_20230423_093227_Google.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

as is yours...

which of these gives you an erection?

rifles.jpg

 

I prefer the marlin. Too thick where i hunt for the other 2. I would say the scary black 1 makes my sticker peck out knowing it makes Karen to Karen's snatch bleed

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Tomas. said:

Are we going to ban pressure cookers because some people used them as bombs and killed a bunch of people? Are we going to ban vehicle renting outfits like U-Haul because someone rented a van and drove into a crowd of people and killed some? Are we going to ban air travel because they have been hijacked and flown into buildings and killed people? 

Bans do not work against criminals. They will always find away. In the UK where they banned guns (for the most part with some exceptions) knifings went through the roof. On top of that they still have a large amount of shootings, they just aren't widely publicized. Do we then go like New Zealand and ban knifes there because a guy stole a knife off a store shelf and killed 9 people?

The argument of banning this gun or that gun based on looks and emotions does not solve issues. There are other options, lots of options to create death. Hell, you can build your own open bolt submachine gun with stuff from the hardware store. 

The prime minister of Japan was killed with an improvised gun. How did their basically country wide gun ban prevent that?

Criminals will always criminal. We need to stop focusing on the object used and start putting real dollars into the person using the object.

In Canada 90%ish of guns used in crimes were smuggled illegally into the country. 

They made AR-15's prohibited devices among the pile of other semi-automatic firearms that were legal and also hand guns were banned for sale and transfer. They are trying to ban all semi autos. The cost of confiscation and the bans will be over 5 billion dollars.

There are scanning machines like the one the Grand Cayman just got that scans for everything. Guns, drugs, all contraband.

What would be better for public safety. Taking firearms from legal owners (because the criminals won't be turning their in) or instead use the money that would be spent on gun bans and confiscation and use it to buy 10 of those scanning machines for everyone of Canada's 119 ports of entry?

Exactly! Why not go after the criminals and help the mentally ill instead of screwing the law abiding citizens over. Unless the Gov is diabolicaly evil and want to get as many weapons away from the citizens as possible so they can have total control. No government would ever do that though right??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

as is yours...

which of these gives you an erection?

rifles.jpg

 

The Marlin 336 30-30 lever action or Winchester 1894 30-30 lever action when I was a kid I could buy them for $125-$140 at Coast to Coast hardware stores now they go for as much as $1000.

@XCR1250 The good old days.  :bc:

Edited by Badger**
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Cat45 said:

Exactly! Why not go after the criminals and help the mentally ill instead of screwing the law abiding citizens over. Unless the Gov is diabolicaly evil and want to get as many weapons away from the citizens as possible so they can have total control. No government would ever do that though right??

show me a bill from either major political party aimed to do either... 

when the Dem's had an opportunity they did nothing (like abortion), and the Rep's are more afraid of losing their base and the gun lobby to do anything, imo. 

8 minutes ago, Sleepr2 said:

Non, but I know which one you think should be banned

me specifically... idk   

all three are equally deadly in differing circumstances but one has become the prime choice for mass shooters due to it's abilities, hasn't it?

seems the masses think the 'scary gun' should be banned again though... and their numbers are growing larger every day

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

show me a bill from either major political party aimed to do either... 

when the Dem's had an opportunity they did nothing (like abortion), and the Rep's are more afraid of losing their base and the gun lobby to do anything, imo. 

me specifically... idk   

all three are equally deadly in differing circumstances but one has become the prime choice for mass shooters due to it's abilities, hasn't it?

seems the masses think the 'scary gun' should be banned again though... and their numbers are growing larger every day

 

But if the masses are uneducated on the subject and being fed false information by shitty politicians try to win votes with emotions. It won't help them solve the problem they are trying to solve.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

show me a bill from either major political party aimed to do either... 

when the Dem's had an opportunity they did nothing (like abortion), and the Rep's are more afraid of losing their base and the gun lobby to do anything, imo. 

me specifically... idk   

all three are equally deadly in differing circumstances but one has become the prime choice for mass shooters due to it's abilities, hasn't it?

seems the masses think the 'scary gun' should be banned again though... and their numbers are growing larger every day

 

That's the problem not the weapon. The govt doesn't give a shit, it's just more election issues for them. Don't you think the definition of mass shooting is kind of disingenuous? You used to hear about 4 people getting shot and didn't pay much attention but now it's a mass shooting and everyone freaks out. The media and govt are playing us like fiddles

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tomas. said:

But if the masses are uneducated on the subject and being fed false information by shitty politicians try to win votes with emotions. It won't help them solve the problem they are trying to solve.

our masses are EXTREMELY uneducated... which is a big part of most 'issues' here. 

as evidence, we elected Donald Trump AND Joe Biden... and to further prove our ignorance we might elect one of them again.

7 minutes ago, Cat45 said:

That's the problem not the weapon. The govt doesn't give a shit, it's just more election issues for them. Don't you think the definition of mass shooting is kind of disingenuous? You used to hear about 4 people getting shot and didn't pay much attention but now it's a mass shooting and everyone freaks out. The media and govt are playing us like fiddles

do you have school aged children?  do you conceal or open carry?  do you own weapons for hunting, personal protection, sport shooting, a collection... or to get your rocks off?  there's a subset of folks with legally purchased firearms in this country that quite possibly doesn't have an adequate mental mindset to possess certain types of firearms at times imo. 

the other day I asked why does a person have to be 21 to purchase alcohol or tobacco products (which will most likely hurt themselves) but an 18 year old can walk into a gun shop and purchase a firearm?  are the alcohol and tobacco laws too stringent or are our second amendment laws too lax?  

 

 

predictable incoming second amendment responses are imminent

 

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

our masses are EXTREMELY uneducated... which is a big part of most 'issues' here. 

as evidence, we elected Donald Trump AND Joe Biden... and to further prove our ignorance we might elect one of them again.

do you have school aged children?  do you conceal or open carry?  do you own weapons for hunting, personal protection, sport shooting, a collection... or to get your rocks off?  there's a subset of folks with legally purchased firearms in this country that quite possibly doesn't have an adequate mental mindset to possess certain types of firearms at times imo. 

the other day I asked why does a person have to be 21 to purchase alcohol or tobacco products (which will most likely hurt themselves) but an 18 year old can walk into a gun shop and purchase a firearm?  are the alcohol and tobacco laws too stringent or are our second amendment laws too lax?  

 

 

predictable incoming second amendment responses are imminent

 

 

  

I have school aged kids, yes i conceal carry, collect guns, hunt more than most, sport shoot with the family every month. Kids are well trained in firearms and have killed game hunting. As far as 18 and being able to purchase a weapon, why not? If you're legally considered an adult and can go to war and die for a politician why can't you buy a gun? I could see making someone go to a firearm safety class before buying a gun as a good thing but i doubt it would stop any shootings

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cat45 said:

I have school aged kids, yes i conceal carry, collect guns, hunt more than most, sport shoot with the family every month. Kids are well trained in firearms and have killed game hunting. As far as 18 and being able to purchase a weapon, why not? If you're legally considered an adult and can go to war and die for a politician why can't you buy a gun? I could see making someone go to a firearm safety class before buying a gun as a good thing but i doubt it would stop any shootings

but not a six pack of pbr or a carton of marbs?  seems a bit hypocritical doesn't it? 

another question (I'm full of them) is... are rural or urban types more likely to commit a mass shooting?  I feel as though most who grow up around firearms, particularly those who hunt or sport shoot have a completely different perspective and respect about firearms than those who purchase as a self defense or potentially offensive weapon.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Crnr2Crnr said:

but not a six pack of pbr or a carton of marbs?  seems a bit hypocritical doesn't it? 

another question (I'm full of them) is... are rural or urban types more likely to commit a mass shooting?  I feel as though most who grow up around firearms, particularly those who hunt or sport shoot have a completely different perspective and respect about firearms than those who purchase as a self defense or potentially offensive weapon.

 

I think the alcohol and tobacco laws are wrong. When I grew up it was 18 for tobacco and 21 for alcohol, pretty much everyone i knew drank and smoked/chewed before legal age so I'm not sure the laws really matter in that regard. I agree that urban people probly are more prone to commit mass shootings because of lack of gun experience. I'd say the majority of rural kids have hunted or killed animals by the time they're 18. Wether it's shooting game or a critter in the yard with a bb gun. They know what it's like to take a life, and probly have felt the mixed emotions of guilt/sadness/respect/happiness for an animal they've harvested. I doubt we'll ever agree on any gun issues but it sure seems like the guns are taking the blame for a mental health issue. I still go back to what should be the ultimate law of the land, don't kill people outside of self defense. If you do you die. If people are willing to break that law what are additional gun laws going to accomplish?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Cat45 said:

I think the alcohol and tobacco laws are wrong. When I grew up it was 18 for tobacco and 21 for alcohol, pretty much everyone i knew drank and smoked/chewed before legal age so I'm not sure the laws really matter in that regard. I agree that urban people probly are more prone to commit mass shootings because of lack of gun experience. I'd say the majority of rural kids have hunted or killed animals by the time they're 18. Wether it's shooting game or a critter in the yard with a bb gun. They know what it's like to take a life, and probly have felt the mixed emotions of guilt/sadness/respect/happiness for an animal they've harvested. I doubt we'll ever agree on any gun issues but it sure seems like the guns are taking the blame for a mental health issue. I still go back to what should be the ultimate law of the land, don't kill people outside of self defense. If you do you die. If people are willing to break that law what are additional gun laws going to accomplish?

maybe we're actually closer than you realize because I fully agree with what you just posted. 

were we differ is likely the path to minimizing mass shootings... but I don't have a palatable solution that both sides of the debate would find acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol

×
×
  • Create New...