Shootings

[GreenGoo]

Just found out that the husband for one of my co-workers (not an immediate team member, but works on a team I support) was one of the victims.

Omg, I'm so sorry for them and for you to have this hit so close to home.

[Smoove_B]

Yeah, that's terrible...and I'd imagine surreal.

[Smoove_B]

Also not helping is this:

As the search for mass shooting suspect Robert Card, 40, of Bowdoin continues Friday, it's unclear what the state's guidance will be for hunters.

Rifle hunting season for Maine residents was scheduled to start Saturday, Oct. 28. For all other rifle hunters in Maine, the season starts Oct. 30.

Meanwhile, more than 350 law enforcement officials are involved in the search for Card, who is presumed armed and dangerous, according to state police, and much of that search has been in various sections of woods.

...

“[Hunting is] a big deal in Maine. It may not be a big deal to a lot of people from other communities, but we know what that’s going to look like.," Sauschuck said. "[Law enforcement is] in the woods. If you just happen to be in the woods minding your own business going for a walk, that’s going to make us a little concerned, right? So it’s definitely a good question and it’s something we’re actively working on.”

[LawBeefaroni]

Also not helping is this:

As the search for mass shooting suspect Robert Card, 40, of Bowdoin continues Friday, it's unclear what the state's guidance will be for hunters.

Rifle hunting season for Maine residents was scheduled to start Saturday, Oct. 28. For all other rifle hunters in Maine, the season starts Oct. 30.

Meanwhile, more than 350 law enforcement officials are involved in the search for Card, who is presumed armed and dangerous, according to state police, and much of that search has been in various sections of woods.

...

“[Hunting is] a big deal in Maine. It may not be a big deal to a lot of people from other communities, but we know what that’s going to look like.," Sauschuck said. "[Law enforcement is] in the woods. If you just happen to be in the woods minding your own business going for a walk, that’s going to make us a little concerned, right? So it’s definitely a good question and it’s something we’re actively working on.”

I mean if they're issuing shelter in place orders to make it easier for law enforcement to operate, they can/should certainly cancel deer hunting for the duration.

[Smoove_B]

It's like you hate freedom.

[LawBeefaroni]

It's like you hate freedom.

Well, I don't own an AR15 pattern rifle so I don't really know what freedom is.

[stessier]

Just change deer season - make it start Monday and end two days later on the other end. They can't keep the SIP orders on indefinitely. Sunday or Monday seems like a reasonable compromise before things start getting challenged in court.

[Smoove_B]

I'm supposed to believe the people that refuse to wear masks are also going to agree to not go hunting? Again, FREEDOM.

[geezer]

It's like you hate freedom.

Well, I don't own an AR15 pattern rifle so I don't really know what freedom is.

Killing animals for fun is freedom. Now you know.

[Punisher]

I guess this incident definitely disproved the "good guy with a gun" theory of stopping mass shootings. Not that anyone cares.

I don't think it does disprove it unless there were armed people at the locations.
I think someone mentioned that they were gun free zones so most law abiding gun owners wouldn't have been carrying.
I think that if we find out that there were law abiding gun owners there that didn't carry it wiuld have the opposite affect.

[Alefroth]

I guess this incident definitely disproved the "good guy with a gun" theory of stopping mass shootings. Not that anyone cares.

I don't think it does disprove it unless there were armed people at the locations.

If they weren't there, then it's a failure, right?

[Unagi]

I guess this incident definitely disproved the "good guy with a gun" theory of stopping mass shootings. Not that anyone cares.

I don't think it does disprove it unless there were armed people at the locations.

If they weren't there, then it's a failure, right?

Punisher is right, they will use it to point out the problem with gun-free zones, not take it as proof that "good guys with a gun" don't make a difference. I don't even get that logic YK put forth.
Head scratcher.
Would someone without the vaccine, who goes on to catch Covid - disprove the vaccine argument?

what am I missing?

[Blackhawk]

Ugh. Of course a (well-trained) 'good guy with a gun' can stop a shooting. That doesn't need proving.

The problem is that empowering the good guy to have a gun is the same thing that empowers the bad guy to have a gun, and the bad guys with guns are killing hundreds for every killing stopped by a good guy with a gun.

[YellowKing]

What I'm saying is that the anti-gun control folks believe that law-abiding gun owners will step up to fill the need of stopping these people before law enforcement arrives. But no gun zones exist, hence that argument only applies in very specific locations where a good guy with a gun just happens to be there and just happens to have the opportunity and courage to stop the shooter. That's a lot of "ifs." Hell, even if everything goes perfectly, chances are a guy with an assault rifle is going to take numerous people out before the "good guy with the gun" has time to react.

It's a bullshit argument, and a bullshit solution to a problem that is very easily solved.

[Unagi]

That's fine. I agree with that.

But with what you said at first...
To me, the "good guy with a gun theory" is a pro-gun/anti-gun control theory alone, and therefore it is only them who need that theory torn down. If this was presented to them, they would simply point to the "gun-free zone" sign and declare their point was only supported by this event.

[Smoove_B]

Found dead:

Robert R. Card II was found dead Friday after a three-day manhunt, U.S. Sen. Angus King told the Bangor Daily News.

Card, 40, was the suspect in the mass shootings in Lewiston that left 18 people dead and 13 injured at Schemengees Bar and Grille and Just-In-Time Recreation on Wednesday.

King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, said Card was found by a Lisbon recycling center where he used to work. He was shot in the same clothes he had on, King said, adding that this information was confirmed by Gov. Janet Mills.

[YellowKing]

If this was presented to them, they would simply point to the "gun-free zone" sign and declare their point was only supported by this event.

Exactly, hence my "but no will care." They'll simply dismiss it as long as it's not one of their kids who's dead.

[waitingtoconnect]

What I'm saying is that the anti-gun control folks believe that law-abiding gun owners will step up to fill the need of stopping these people before law enforcement arrives. But no gun zones exist, hence that argument only applies in very specific locations where a good guy with a gun just happens to be there and just happens to have the opportunity and courage to stop the shooter. That's a lot of "ifs." Hell, even if everything goes perfectly, chances are a guy with an assault rifle is going to take numerous people out before the "good guy with the gun" has time to react.

It's a bullshit argument, and a bullshit solution to a problem that is very easily solved.

You are 100% correct.

Most good guys with a gun are only going to be armed with pistols which makes it hard to repel the firepower of an assault rifle. Also many perps wear body armour and as a good guy you have to account for innocents in the vicinity.

The good guy with a gun theory assumes people armed with assault rifles to protect us on every event where any meal in public or just going to work could be your last. believe me that is no way to live.

[waitingtoconnect]

Thoughts and prayers are the only gun control action we'll get out of this Congress.

Wow, you're a real cynic, aren't you?! Just glossed over the HOPE part completely: "we’re really, really hopeful"

They are going to give gun victims all possible support short of help.

[LawBeefaroni]

The alleged Maine shooter was found dead.

Self-inflicted gunshot wound.

See, guns are the solution!

[Alefroth]

A bad guy with a gun took out a bad guy with a gun.

[Punisher]

My personal belief is that a good guy can potentially stop a bad guy with a gun, just not only a good guy with a gun.
If something happens in a gun free zone though, then typically law abiding gun owners will leave there guns at home or locked in their car. So if something happens there is no real way of knowing what would happen.
Maybe if it wasnt a gun free zone, gun owners would have stopped the guy with the rifle (its not an assault rifle btw as far as I've read). Or maybe the gun owners would have frozen and done nothing or be shot first or any number of things.
If anything this doesn't disprove at all that a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy and instead as Unagi said, the heavy gun rights people will say that this could have been prevented if it wasn't a gun free zone and they are potentially right.

[Unagi]

Well, see- no, they aren't right - because there will always be some other bowling alley and some other guy - and somewhere, someone's kid is going to get mowed down - each and every time.


I think the one thing we can all agree upon, no matter what is that: a guy with a gun can stop another guy dead in their tracks with just a twitch of their finger.

That may be a bad guy or that may be your kid - ya feeling lucky?

[Alefroth]

My personal belief is that a good guy can potentially stop a bad guy with a gun, just not only a good guy with a gun.
If something happens in a gun free zone though, then typically law abiding gun owners will leave there guns at home or locked in their car. So if something happens there is no real way of knowing what would happen.
Maybe if it wasnt a gun free zone, gun owners would have stopped the guy with the rifle (its not an assault rifle btw as far as I've read). Or maybe the gun owners would have frozen and done nothing or be shot first or any number of things.
If anything this doesn't disprove at all that a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy and instead as Unagi said, the heavy gun rights people will say that this could have been prevented if it wasn't a gun free zone and they are potentially right.

We've seen that not being a gun free zone doesn't prevent this.

No one is arguing that it's not possible for a good guy to stop a bad guy, just that it very rarely happens (even when a good guy is on the scene) and that it's a ridiculous solution clung to by unserious people.

Also, if guns don't kill people, why does it have to be a good guy with a gun? If a good guy really wanted to be a hero, couldn't they just find a way?

[Kraken]

Also, if guns don't kill people, why does it have to be a good guy with a gun? If a good guy really wanted to be a hero, couldn't they just find a way?

According to the thumbnail victim portraits that I saw this morning, three men were killed (separately) trying to stop the shooter.

[Alefroth]

So maybe it is the guns.

[LawBeefaroni]

(its not an assault rifle btw as far as I've read).

Surveillance footage shows him with an AR pattern rifle. Does "assault rifle" mean full auto? It so, no, no evidence that it was full auto. But it sure looks a lot like a semi auto AR pattern rifle. Which is commonly called an "assault rifle" or "assault weapon".

[Punisher]

(its not an assault rifle btw as far as I've read).

Surveillance footage shows him with an AR pattern rifle. Does "assault rifle" mean full auto? It so, no, no evidence that it was full auto. But it sure looks a lot like a semi auto AR pattern rifle. Which is commonly called an "assault rifle" or "assault weapon".

IIRC, an assault rifle is officially defined as a rifle with a select fire switch. Safe doesn't count. So semi auto and safe is NOT an assault rifle. Semi auto with a switch for either full auto or burst fire (typically 3 round burst) or both could be considered an assault rifle.
This is one of my pet peeves. The "gun grabbers" throw this term aroynd specifically BECAUSE it SOUNDS scary. I'm sure they know by now that its 100% not accurate but it grabs peoples attention and misinforms them. Same thing with describing the AR15 as a weapin of war. It never was. It does look like an M16 and M4 type rifle which were designed for the military but the ar wasn't designed for the military. Could it be used for war? Sure, but so can a handgun and shotgun and my kitchen knife. I also think they choose an unfortunate name. The AR doesn't stand for Assault Rifle as a lot of people assume. It is short for Armalite. The manufacturer.
These pics explain it a bit better.

Spoiler:

[Alefroth]

I've heard getting hung up on semantics is the quickest way to a solution.

[disarm]

So you're saying that a gun does not have to be an "assault weapon" to be very effective at killing people. Seems like a good argument for restricting the sale and possession of more than just assault rifles...

[Punisher]

I've heard getting hung up on semantics is the quickest way to a solution.

See, I dont think its semantics at all in this case. I think it's fear mongering.
I'm not saying that these shootings ate ok, but if you have to resort to scate tactics and misinformation to get your point across then maybe you need to rethink your strategy if not your whole point.
They are purposely trying to scare people by using misinformation. Mist likely to get people on the fence over to their side by making the gun sound worse then it is.
Realistically, just about any firearm can do what most mass shooters do. For anything long distance, someone with any semi auto rifle can do it. At close range even someone with a handgun can do it.
They are using fear mongering and misinformation to try to ban how one particular style of rifle looks instead of trying to focus on the bigger issues of mental health.
Lets say they ban all ar15 style rifles. Then another mass shooting happens anyway. The pro gun people are going to say see! They got what they wanted and it didn't stop anything. They will then use that example to even more heavily oppose any further gun control as ineffective and only being used to take your gun rights away.
I just think they ate focusing on the wrong thing and its not gonna help at all.

[Unagi]

You are half right. (IMO)

They should just be focused on all guns.

You said it yourself: just about any gun could do it.

Mental health is an impossibly nebulous target to hit, and while we absolutely need to help people with mental health issues, we should not let it stand in place for the conversation this country refuses to have about guns.

[malchior]

I'm not saying that these shootings ate ok, but if you have to resort to scate tactics and misinformation to get your point across then maybe you need to rethink your strategy if not your whole point.
They are purposely trying to scare people by using misinformation. Mist likely to get people on the fence over to their side by making the gun sound worse then it is.

Don't fight misinformation with misinformation.

Stoner, who had served as a Marine during World War II, had joined a corporation that made aircraft valves, where a design engineer took him under his wing, providing a kind of apprenticeship. His lack of formal education helped make him more creative and less hidebound than his trained colleagues. On his own time, he embarked on a mission in his garage to improve the clunky M1. In 1954, a chance encounter with a wily entrepreneur led to the creation of Armalite, the gun maker that under Stoner’s direction would build the AR-15 and try to get the military to adopt it.

The rapid-fire weapon was composed of aluminum, fiberglass and plastic, and weighed about five pounds unloaded. It had a novel reloading system that functioned on the gun’s own hot gas, and a unique stock that kept the gun on target. It could toggle between semiautomatic and fully automatic settings. Its bullets were small and fired at high velocity. When one hit a human body, the authors write, “it slowed down and released its energy.” Unlike the M1’s large-caliber bullet, which tended to pass straight through a person, the AR-15’s became unstable upon entry, and “tore through the body like a tornado, spiraling and tipping as it obliterated organs, blood vessels and bones.”

Despite the weapon’s evident ferocity, Armalite failed to land a big military contract. In 1959, the gun company Colt acquired manufacturing and sublicensing rights to Stoner’s AR-15 and his gas system. Colt had better luck with its version of the rifle, which the armed forces called the M16. It came equipped with a 20-round magazine, and in 1966, the military ordered more than 400,000 of the guns for its troops.

It was designed with the hope of replacing the M1. It didn't land the contract but Colt bought the design and evolved it with some modifications into the M16. It uses the same ammo. It uses most of the same parts. Just because it never had a military contract doesn't mean it wasn't designed for war. It is essentially a near-identical copy of what became the main army battle rifle. The chief difference is that the lower receiver on a AR15 is narrower for the purpose of making it incompatible with the M-16 full-auto sear.

Realistically, just about any firearm can do what most mass shooters do. For anything long distance, someone with any semi auto rifle can do it. At close range even someone with a handgun can do it.

Again this is incomplete/misnformation on your part. Sure any weapon can be used for for a mass shooting but it has much more firepower. Here is a reference. Crucially this means one of the most important aspects - it's ability to main and kill - and it ease of use are what makes it especially lethal.

They are using fear mongering and misinformation to try to ban how one particular style of rifle looks instead of trying to focus on the bigger issues of mental health.
Lets say they ban all ar15 style rifles. Then another mass shooting happens anyway. The pro gun people are going to say see! They got what they wanted and it didn't stop anything. They will then use that example to even more heavily oppose any further gun control as ineffective and only being used to take your gun rights away.
I just think they ate focusing on the wrong thing and its not gonna help at all.

This frankly doesn't make much sense. It's an argument to do nothing in a highly illogical way.

[Punisher]

Honestly?
I think a full on gun ban would be impossible. It's just not gonna hapoen.
I'm an odd pro 2a person. I believe in the right to bear arms.
I also believe in SOME gun control.
Federal bavkground checks.
REQUIRING all law enforcement and government entities to report rteal red flags like felony convictions and such to a federal database.
Possibly requiring mental health facilities to do the same but im concerned about HIPPA and the abuse this could cause. Like say someone who os depressed because they uad a really bad week getting banned for life. DEFINITELY dont make it ANY sort of incentive for a facility to send in a red flag because they WILL abise it fir money.
Same goes for family red flags. I think they should be THOYRGHLY investigating but mot an automatic ban because i can see someone pissing off their damily member and that damily member make stuff up.
I dont think any semi automatic firearm should be banned. "Maybe" ban carrying a rifle in public only? Bit im honestly not decided on that one.

I have other thinfs but cant remember them right now.

[Punisher]

I'm not saying that these shootings ate ok, but if you have to resort to scate tactics and misinformation to get your point across then maybe you need to rethink your strategy if not your whole point.
They are purposely trying to scare people by using misinformation. Mist likely to get people on the fence over to their side by making the gun sound worse then it is.

Don't fight misinformation with misinformation.

Stoner, snip

It was designed with the hope of replacing the M1. The chief difference is that the lower receiver on a AR15 is narrower for the purpose of making it incompatible with the M-16 full-auto sear.

Ok, msybe the initial design was, but the actual production wasnt.

Realistically, just about any firearm can do what most mass shooters do. For anything long distance, someone with any semi auto rifle can do it. At close range even someone with a handgun can do it.

Again this is incomplete/misnformation on your part. Sure any weapon can be used for for a mass shooting but it has much more firepower. Here is a reference. Crucially this means one of the most important aspects - it's ability to main and kill - and it ease of use are what makes it especially lethal.

I'd argue that they are providing misinformation by omm8sion.
I'd say that a .45 will do more damage than a.223.
Not sure how a .223 comoates to a 9mm though. I "think" that might be the most common caliber.
I "think" the 9mm might be worse because it stays intact so it may go through 1 person and into another.

I just think they ate focusing on the wrong thing and its not gonna help at all.

This frankly doesn't make much sense. It's an argument to do nothing in a highly illogical way.

No, im not saying do nothing. I think trying to ban the ar15 IS doung nothing.
I know this is cliche but guns dont kill people. People kill people. Just like cars dont kill people drunk drivers do.
Focus on the real issue. WHY are people doing tjis in the first place?
Banning 1 type of gun isnt going to dtop or change anything.
I also dont think that banning all huns is a realistic option. I even think the people saying this KNOW its never going to happen, but especially for politicians in certain areas it SOUNDS goid for them and gives the illusion they ate trying to do something.

[Alefroth]

I've heard getting hung up on semantics is the quickest way to a solution.

See, I dont think its semantics at all in this case. I think it's fear mongering.
I'm not saying that these shootings ate ok, but if you have to resort to scate tactics and misinformation to get your point across then maybe you need to rethink your strategy if not your whole point.
They are purposely trying to scare people by using misinformation. Mist likely to get people on the fence over to their side by making the gun sound worse then it is.

I don't think it's fearmongering or misinformation. I just think that people that are losing loved ones to gun violence just don't really care if what they are calling the gun is technically accurate. It's just a useful umbrella term for the sorts of rifles that are overwhelmingly used to slaughter a large number of people easily and quickly.

What term do you think should replace assault rifle?

[malchior]

Ok, msybe the initial design was, but the actual production wasnt.

What does this mean? The point is it has near equivalent firepower which is all what matters and what folks mean when they refer to it's firepower as a weapon of war. It was designed for war. It has comparable firepower.

Realistically, just about any firearm can do what most mass shooters do. For anything long distance, someone with any semi auto rifle can do it. At close range even someone with a handgun can do it.
I'd argue that they are providing misinformation by omm8sion.
I'd say that a .45 will do more damage than a.223.
Not sure how a .223 comoates to a 9mm though. I "think" that might be the most common caliber.

You can argue whatever you want. You're wrong. It isn't true. I'm now seeing that you're just winging facts around so I'm not going to invest much more time on it.

I "think" the 9mm might be worse because it stays intact so it may go through 1 person and into another.

I literally provided information that indicates that isn't even close to accurate. Maybe you can't access the WaPo piece but this is just wrong. There are probably other free to read articles that'll clear it up for you but you're literally complaining about misinformation and it's clear as day that you're speaking from a position of relative ignorance. Sorry to be firm here but it's just apparent.

No, im not saying do nothing. I think trying to ban the ar15 IS doung nothing.
I know this is cliche but guns dont kill people. People kill people. Just like cars dont kill people drunk drivers do.
Focus on the real issue. WHY are people doing tjis in the first place?

This goes back to the what Speaker Johnson said which is similarly inane. What is different in the United States? What's the x factor? Is it the people? I doubt it. In reality, it's probably a combination of things since our society has many unaddressed problems compared to other countries. That may contribute but one huge variable that separates us from other nations is the widespread availability of these extremely deadly weapons. It is almost certainly a major cause.

[Isgrimnur]

[T]he FBI isn't cool enough to break out pistols, revolvers, and derringers from handguns in their homicide statistics.

If you are murdered, it's more likely to be by being beaten to death by an unarmed assailant than shot by a rifle or shotgun.

Eight years of statistics later...

Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) - 397
Rifles - 364
Shotguns - 200

2022

[YellowKing]

Wake me up when someone walks into a nightclub and manages to kill 49 people with a hammer. Or manages to kill 60 people at a concert with a hammer from the comfort of their hotel room.

You can throw all the smoke and mirrors up you want, it doesn't change the fact that the biggest mass shootings are happening time and time again with the same style of weapon. Over and over and over.

Tell the guy bleeding out on the floor of a bowling alley that statistically he was more likely to have been murdered with a hammer.

[Punisher]

Ok, msybe the initial design was, but the actual production wasnt.

What does this mean? The point is it has near equivalent firepower which is all what matters and what folks mean when they refer to it's firepower as a weapon of war. It was designed for war. It has comparable firepower.

Realistically, just about any firearm can do what most mass shooters do.
I'd say that a .45 will do more damage than a.223.
Not sure how a .223 comoates to a 9mm though. I "think" that might be the most common caliber.

You can argue whatever you want. You're wrong. It isn't true. I'm now seeing that you're just winging facts around so I'm not going to invest much more time on it.

Check the link at the bottom
It shows the energy of a bulket at 100 yards. Both the 9mm and the .45 have more energy.
I'm trying to also find stats or whatever on varioys bullets on a ballastic target to get a more accurate idea.
I'm willing to be wrong on this that a .223 is overall more deadly than a .45. Maybe even a 9mm. But we also would need to define the different variables.
Which does more damage to an individual target, which has more through peneyration to multiple targets, etc..
Also, muktiple rifles use the same .223 bullet as the ar15 so its not a unique weapon.

I "think" the 9mm might be worse because it stays intact so it may go through 1 person and into another.

I literally provided information that indicates that isn't even close to accurate. Maybe you can't access the WaPo piece but this is just wrong. There are probably other free to read articles that'll clear it up for you but you're literally complaining about misinformation and it's clear as day that you're speaking from a position of relative ignorance. Sorry to be firm here but it's just apparent.

it was a hassle but i got in tp the argument. I only saw info specifically on the ar15 and ots .223. Not a comparison or anything. If I missed the comparison let me know and ill reread it and yry to understand better.

No, im not saying do nothing. I think trying to ban the ar15 IS doung nothing.
I know this is cliche but guns dont kill people. People kill people. Just like cars dont kill people drunk drivers do.
Focus on the real issue. WHY are people doing tjis in the first place?

This goes back to the what Speaker Johnson said which is similarly inane. What is different in the United States? What's the x factor? Is it the people? I doubt it. In reality, it's probably a combination of things since our society has many unaddressed problems compared to other countries. That may contribute but one huge variable that separates us from other nations is the widespread availability of these extremely deadly weapons. It is almost certainly a major cause.

I'm sure there isn't one big factor and agree that tjere are probably multiple factors.
I do think people is one of them. Particularly with mental health. I dont think ots "normal" to want to go out and kill a bunch of random people. I'd say that the first step sjould be to fund national mental Healthcare and make it free and readily available to anyone. If that ties into red flag laws they need to be VERY strict AND there needs to be blowback if someone, even a therapists, recommends gun removal thats unwarranted. Id even be ok with a red flag law that lets the family of a person force them into therpy gor evaluation only. Nothing else happens. The person just has to go gor an evaluation. After the evaluation the therapist determines if more therapy is needed or not but still no gun removal unless there is a clearcut and definitive issue found in the evaluation. In that case the guns can be removed on a temporary basis for now. Then if cleared by a therapist the guns get returned within 2 weeks max.

Do i think that gun availability is at least a contributing factor? Sure but how do you fix that? You can't confiscate them all as it would be illegal and most likely killed in the SC.
You'd have to first repeal or whatever, the 2a. While it can be done, I don't see it happening for a few generations at least.

Link with bullet energy mentioned above
https://webpath.med.utah.edu/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNBLST.html