Shootings

[LawBeefaroni]

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.

Not really. In terms of quick target acquisition, ease of shooting, lethality, and capacity, AR pattern rifles are hard to beat. Yes, there are substitutes. But to say that any semi auto rifle is the same is ludicrous.

I don't know how to legislate this. I live in a state that has effectively banned my 10/22. But at least they're trying.

[malchior]

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.

Uh...you might want to look again. I suspect that you are matching energy at 100 yards in the top table with energy at 500 yards in the bottom table.

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.

OK.

Which does more damage to an individual target, which has more through peneyration to multiple targets, etc..

This is drastically overthinking things. Also, people have already done this and it's no contest. Again you're simply wrong here.

Also, muktiple rifles use the same .223 bullet as the ar15 so its not a unique weapon.

No one ever said it was and I don't think the law would say AR-15. I wasn't even arguing for particular legislation. I was simply pointing out that you were complaining about misinformation when you seem to not have a grasp on the basics yourself. Just a suggestion to maybe re-think what you think you know.

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.

I wouldn't get too wrapped around "AR-15" but it is widely documented why these particular styles of shootings end up being so deadly.

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.

So are you arguing the United States has more mental health issues than everywhere else? I mean our society is incredibly unfair so there are more pressures compared to our peers but I've never seen any evidence we have some plague of mental health issues compared to them.

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.

We're now seeing a trend where several of these shooters had known mental issues and had access to mental health care. I'm not saying it's 100% but I'd suggest this idea is sticking because it is a favorite push point from the NRA/GOP to distract from the actual issue.

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.

Therapists definitely don't need this responsibility thrust on them. Especially troublesome when it comes with "blowback" if they get it wrong. Very much like arming teachers this is a bad idea. That is a consequence of looking for solutions where there is already are better approaches.

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.

All I'm seeing is a very unserious policy suggestion with a bunch of gotchas that make it sort of farsical.

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.

This isn't necessarily the only path. I don't think it'd be realistic to take these out of people hands. These particular weapons could however either be regulated different or possibly taken off the market and allowed to attrit over time.

One of the patterns we see in these events is that shooters often go out and buy a weapon immediately before the killing spree. This would have happened here but he was institutionalized for a few weeks. The reporting is he bought the gun days before he started talking about shooting up his base. The two week pause probably took the urge/pressure off but eventually it came back and the weapon was still in his hands. This approach wouldn't stop all of these events but it might cut down on a good amount of them. Another parallel option is increase the waiting period for buying one of these weapons.

In any case, one of the tactics used to prevent any progress is to seek perfection. We don't have to get to the perfect end state. We can take a step and see if it works. I mean we could if people cared about stopping the violence. Instead our politicians are beholden to special interests or people who want to be able to buy 'cool' shit while we continue to be the only country where this regularly happens.

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

Again please compare like to like. You'll see you're incorrect.

[YellowKing]

I feel like saying "we need to solve the underlying problem of mental health rather than take these weapons away" is sort of akin to saying it would be easier to prevent automobile fatalities by removing the reasons people need to drive, rather than enforcing seatbelt laws.

Obviously we need to address mental health issues, but that's a much harder solution than simply strengthening laws to keep these weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill.

It's typical of the anti-gun control crowd. They'll come up with 500 complicated "solutions," most of which introduce even more problems, just to get around the one simple solution.

I mean if I had a board game that I enjoyed that was regularly killing dozens of people a month, I wouldn't hesitate to give it up. I don't care what my board game rights were. And our rights have never been limitless. Freedom of speech has its limits. The right to bear arms has its limits (I can't walk around legally carrying hand grenades). We live under limitations of our "rights" every single day in order to keep the broader public safe. It's not a novel concept.

[Daehawk]

15 people shot at Halloween party in Chicago

At least 15 people were shot early Sunday morning on Chicago’s west side, according to a news release from the Chicago Police Department, at an event CNN affiliate WLS described as a large Halloween party.

The victims include six women and nine men between the ages of 26 and 53, Chicago police said in the news release, and two remain in critical condition: A 26-year-old woman who was shot in the left hip and right buttocks, and a 48-year-old man who suffered three gunshot wounds to his hips and thighs.

[Smoove_B]

From Maine:

The weaponry is the problem here. As we now await an inventory from investigators of exactly what Card was carrying in addition to his rapid-fire rifle, we know that those 18 innocent victims were not mowed down by whatever delusions he was having. They were executed, methodically and efficiently, by the hardware he was handling.

Reasonable minds can disagree on the best strategies to stop the carnage. From an outright ban on assault-style weapons to limiting magazine capacities and thus stanching the number of bullets a shooter can discharge without pausing to reload, options abound for at least slowing what is now a runaway train, an outright invitation to daily disaster.

Are the vast majority of gun owners in Maine responsible, safety-conscious, law-abiding citizens? Of course they are. But that’s no longer the point.

The point is that behind every law, every social policy, lies a risk-reward calculus. The reward for Maine’s relatively lax gun laws is that collectors, sportsmen and target-shooting enthusiasts get to enjoy their hobby. The risk is that some of those guns and accessories fall too easily into the wrong hands and, just like that, phone alerts start lighting up all over Maine.

It’s no longer a hypothetical, people. It happened. Last week.

Put simply, it’s time for Maine – all of Maine – to wake the hell up. It doesn’t have to be this way.

In closing:

Even now, we have a long way to go. On Friday, seeking a short respite from the horror, I joined my best friend for a round of golf not terribly far from where Card abandoned his vehicle and, it later turned out, took his own life.

Nursing a beer in the lounge after we finished, we and everyone else watched Fox News report on divers searching the Androscoggin River. But it was the chatter around the bar that really caught my attention.

One smiling man, holding up both hands, was explaining to the young woman on the stool next to him how to properly fire a handgun.

“Squeeze the trigger, don’t pull it,” he said, mimicking the motion. “Squeeze it!”

Down the bar, another man patted his side, motioned out toward the parking lot, and boasted to the bartender, “I’ve got a 9 mil!”

This is the stuff of fantasy: There’s a killer on the loose and, by gorry, I’m going to get him before he gets me! You want reality? Watch this week as the agonizing memorial services and burials bring Lewiston to its knees.

Jared Golden got it right. It’s time for us to admit failure and rethink this national gun fetish.

It’s time to get mad. And stay mad.

[Blackhawk]

It's typical of the anti-gun control crowd. They'll come up with 500 complicated "solutions," most of which introduce even more problems, just to get around the one simple solution.

Part of that is frustration. When they attempt reasonable measures, they get shot down. Repeatedly.

And part of it is idealism. The right wants to jump us back in time a century, but the left wants to jump us forward a century. They look at the end goal, and then ask why they can't just legislate that end goal straight into being. They never want to consider that the end goal would have to be the result of a long process, so instead of starting that process and making progress, they just keep plugging away at the 'ideal' solution. They see the deaths now, and they want to stop the deaths now. I absolutely get that - I want it stopped right now, too. But there is no plan to stop it right now that will work. We have to chip away, quietly close loopholes, let peoples' minds change, let the generations who grew up with a society that showed that 'guns are cool' (including my own generation - born in '73) die off.

We can either work on a process that will solve the problem in 40 or 50 years, or we can keep trying to solve the problem all at once with some sort of imaginary magic pill solution that will never work (because it will never be passed, and because it will never be accepted or enforced.)

And as much as it sucks, right now it needs to be something that we let rest until we can make sure that the nation survives. Yeah, I know, you're getting ready to click the 'quote' button. But we can only tackle so many hot-button issues that drive the right to the polls at once. Tackle too many controversies at once, lose elections, then lose the government, and then there won't be a solution. (Well, that's not true - if the hard right wins, they'll be the ones coming for the guns - fascists don't last long in armed populations, so once keeping votes is no longer an issue...)

Sadly, that too is an idealistic answer. The voters won't allow any of the controversies to be put on the back burner.

And, unfortunately, that's one of the things that the Rs have always handled better than the Ds. The Rs are willing to let issues lie and spend a few decades laying the groundwork to let them prevail, while the Ds always want to solve everything right now, regardless of whether it eventually causes them to fail to solve them. Win the battle, lose the war.

[Smoove_B]

Focus shifts to the police:

Police across Maine were alerted just last month to “veiled threats” by the U.S. Army reservist who would go on to carry out the worst mass shooting in the state’s history, one of a string of missed red flags that preceded the massacre.

Two local law enforcement chiefs told The Associated Press that a statewide awareness alert was sent in mid-September to be on the lookout for Robert Card after the firearms instructor made threats against his base and fellow soldiers. But after stepped-up patrols of the base and a visit to Card’s home – neither of which turned up any sign of him – they moved on.

“We added extra patrols, we did that for about two weeks. ... The guy never showed up,” said Jack Clements, the police chief in Saco, home to the U.S. Army Reserve base where Card trained.

I genuinely don't blame the police here. Even if they did find him, I'm guessing unless he actively pulled a gun on them, they would have moved on as well. Just reinforcing how unprepared the entire system is to try and address any of this. And by "this" I mean guns. Guns are the problem.

[Punisher]

Again please compare like to like. You'll see you're incorrect.

Ok. I had to reread it multiple times to understand what you were referring to and i see what happened. I thought they had the same columns for both handguns and rifles and didn't realize they added a column fir rifles. My bad and i stand corrected on that.

Rather than continue quoting back and forth ill just ask you.
What realistic changes would you like done?

[YellowKing]

I'm not asking to solve the problem all at once. I'm asking someone to do ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING. The idea that our *only* option is to work towards a 40-50 year solution does not compute. Like...at all.

[Kraken]

Bear in mind that SCOTUS didn't create your individual right to own guns until 2008. By one vote.

The justices had a mixed ruling in District of Columbia v Heller (2008). They argued that an individual has a right to own a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for lawful purposes, like self-defense within the home.

This was the first time that SCOTUS ruled on the militia connection within the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms provision, with the 5-4 decision affirming that the amendment was applicable to individuals and not only to a state’s militia.

Heller is the root of all our gun violence problems. A friendly SCOTUS could overturn that misguided decision and restore the "militia" part of the 2A, especially after the current SCOTUS has set the precedent (with Dobbs) of having contempt for precedents that it doesn't like.

[Daehawk]

Maine shooting: 'We sold 28 guns yesterday' says shop owner

[Blackhawk]

I'm not asking to solve the problem all at once. I'm asking someone to do ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING. The idea that our *only* option is to work towards a 40-50 year solution does not compute. Like...at all.

Sure. But then the general voter screams that we have to solve the problem here and now, and rejects any solution that doesn't end the threat immediately ("It's not enough!"), while suggesting absurd solutions (like banning all firearms, or limiting them to a three-round capacity) that will never happen, followed by voting out any pro-gun-control politicians who don't try extreme measures that will never get passed and serve mostly to inflame the opposition...

Those are the people who have to look at long-term solutions. They have to realize that the way solve the problems is small, subtle tweaks, all the while laying the groundwork for laying more groundwork to eventually be able to pass the big laws. It involves baby steps that don't seem extreme and are less likely to be instantly shut down or dragged before the Supreme Court (which, with this court, serves mostly to help the pro-gun faction.)

And those baby steps to an eventual real solution absolutely do involve doing something now - just not enough of a something to satisfy the people screaming for immediate solutions.

And so we go nowhere. Most likely? This will end at thoughts and prayers (achieving nothing), or they'll try to pass some law that takes a dramatic step and is immediately voted down or struck down and later used as ammunition against them, (achieving nothing), or they will pass some silly cosmetic law that makes people feel good but doesn't actually help solve the problem by impacting the effectiveness in any way. Which is also likely to be struck down.

In fact, until the Supreme Court has been righted, strong anti-gun legislation is seriously dangerous.

[Blackhawk]

The idea that our *only* option is to work towards a 40-50 year solution does not compute.

And just to touch on this specific part, I never said that it was our only option. I said that it was the only option to fully solve the problem. I never said that we should wait 40-50 years. I specifically said that what we do now (as in "we should do something now") is how we begin the process that won't culminate for decades. Like I said, a process rather than an instant solution.

[YellowKing]

Sure. But then the general voter screams that we have to solve the problem here and now, and rejects any solution that doesn't end the threat immediately ("It's not enough!"), while suggesting absurd solutions (like banning all firearms, or limiting them to a three-round capacity) that will never happen, followed by voting out any pro-gun-control politicians who don't try extreme measures that will never get passed and serve mostly to inflame the opposition...

Well that's certainly an interesting take. The problem with getting gun control legislation passed is because the left is too extreme.

Over and over and over again the left has tried to pass common sense gun control legislation in various states. Not extreme. Not banning all firearms. Simple things like background checks and red flag laws *that most responsible gun owners WANT* and the GOP has continuously shot every bit of it down. Over and over and over. The problem does not lie with people who want stronger oversight on these weapons. The problem lies with people who continuously find ways to make excuses as to why this problem can't be solved.

[Blackhawk]

You say that things like background checks aren't extreme, but the pro-gun lobby sees those as extreme (and those in power see them as the toe in the door), and responds accordingly.

Sure. But then the general voter screams that we have to solve the problem here and now, and rejects any solution that doesn't end the threat immediately ("It's not enough!"), while suggesting absurd solutions (like banning all firearms, or limiting them to a three-round capacity) that will never happen, followed by voting out any pro-gun-control politicians who don't try extreme measures that will never get passed and serve mostly to inflame the opposition...

Well that's certainly an interesting take. The problem with getting gun control legislation passed is because the left is too extreme.

Over and over and over again the left has tried to pass common sense gun control legislation in various states. Not extreme. Not banning all firearms. Simple things like background checks and red flag laws *that most responsible gun owners WANT* and the GOP has continuously shot every bit of it down. Over and over and over. The problem does not lie with people who want stronger oversight on these weapons. The problem lies with people who continuously find ways to make excuses as to why this problem can't be solved.

The problem doesn't lie with either. The problem lies with flaws in the system that allows the GOP to shoot every bit of it down, over and over, and with the element of our society that rewards them for it.

I'm not making excuses, and I don't think it can't be solved. I think it can't be solved by acting like flies trying get through a window and repeatedly slamming our faces into something that isn't going to budge.

I think it can be solved by approaching it with a consistent, thought-out plan that ends in the problem being solved rather than the blind flailing we do every time there is a story on the news. Every time five or ten or twenty people are killed at once (when there are ~120 people shot and killed every day), everyone shouts, "Oh no! 18 people were killed. Quick! Do something! It didn't work the last few times we tried it, but common sense is that it really should work, so let's do it again instead of trying something else!"

I'm saying it's time to try something else.

If you want an actual suggestion from a non-expert? I'll give it a non-researched, off-the-top-of-my-head try. A team of actual political, legal, and psychological experts could do much better. So, with that in mind, here's my brainstormed rough draft.

We need to step back, let the issue cool down a little (right now anything that touches on guns in any way is strongly opposed and blocked, and strong action against guns mostly backfires in an era when we can't afford the backlash), and start with the peripheral issues, like mental health, the way shooters are glorified by the media, the enforcement of existing laws, and continuing the cultural shift that's been taking place over the last ~15 years (ever notice how few 'hero with a gun' shows are on TV now compared to then?)

Meanwhile, start working on reforming the systems that prevent common-sense solutions from working (like the Supreme Court, Congress, and some of the worst abuses of social media.) Obviously, those are also long-term projects that won't be fixed overnight, but we can start moving in the right direction, and it will start to help - a little. It wont be dramatic, and it won't bring about dramatic change. Then we move on to the next less-controversial measure, then the next. Before we address each, we look at the problems that it is likely to encounter, and move to address those first - you know, playing three moves ahead rather than making it up as we go an hoping it'll work. And as the culture continues to shift, and as the old guard dies off, the opposition will decrease, and the progress will accelerate.

Instead of trying to cut gun violence 50% right now and failing, we look for a way to cut gun violence by 2% per year for 25 years (completely invented numbers for illustration.) In one approach we end up with 0%, but with the other we may actually see progress. The problem is that people aren't willing to settle for the 2%, and keep choosing the 0%.

My whole point is that it's time to wise up and start stacking the 2% up.

But we won't. We'll go for the 50%, then do it again next time this happens.

Bzzz *bonk.* Bzzz *bonk.* Bzzz *bonk.*

[YellowKing]

If a salmonella outbreak in a bag of lettuce kills a couple of people, they'll institute a nationwide recall. Is that an overreaction? How many people does lettuce kill per year? Do any of those statistics matter at the time? No, because sane people don't want innocent people dying from eating a salad. So they take steps to prevent that.

You don't have people out there saying "Hey guys, we need to calm down and take a step back before we start pulling lettuce from the shelves." They just pull the lettuce off the shelf because it's the right thing to do.

Only in gun nut world are we seemingly OK to make a million excuses why we can't take any concrete steps to address the problem. Immediately. Like other countries have done to great effect.

With a stroke of a pen, you could pass a law in Maine that would have prevented or greatly reduced the chance of this incident occurring. But what do we get? Thoughts and prayers, no action, and the same tired talking points of "stop overreacting."

See you back here in a few weeks when we're going through the same tragedy.

[Blackhawk]

Terrible analogy. Lettuce doesn't have half of the country willing to defend it, the government isn't guaranteed to block the recall, and the guy that orders the recall isn't going to be voted out of office for it, allowing the pro-lettuce crowd to take control and change the laws to prevent recalls.

And you keep using the word 'excuse.' I'm not making excuses, I'm looking at the reality of the situation and deciding that certain courses of action will work better than the one that has failed dozens of times in a row.

With a stroke of a pen, you could pass a law in Maine that would have prevented or greatly reduced the chance of this incident occurring.

Do you really believe that we could, or just that we should be able to? Because passing such laws isn't going to happen in the world we live in. They're either never going to be passed, or they'll be vetoed, or they will be dragged to the Supreme Court who will not only strike it down, they will make such laws harder to pass in the future. Right now we should be bending over backwards to keep meaningful legislation as far from the Supreme Court as possible.

And the political cost for doing so could prevent fixing the underlying problems at all.

That isn't an excuse. It's seeing an approach to a problem as futile and even detrimental and saying that we should find a different approach.

[Kraken]

With a stroke of a pen, you could pass a law in Maine that would have prevented or greatly reduced the chance of this incident occurring.

Do you really believe that we could, or just that we should be able to? Because passing such laws isn't going to happen in the world we live in. They're either never going to be passed, or they'll be vetoed, or they will be dragged to the Supreme Court who will not only strike it down, they will make such laws harder to pass in the future. Right now we should be bending over backwards to keep meaningful legislation as far from the Supreme Court as possible.

I'll predict that ME will convert their yellow flag law to a proper red flag law, which could have prevented this one. ME is not the place you want to challenge gun culture, but this is a baby step they'll accept.

[YellowKing]

I think we're just talking from two different stances, Blackhawk. I get what you're saying, I'm just not content with the situation we're in. What you're suggesting is happening no more than what I'm suggesting. Nothing is being done at any level to even slightly mitigate, much less solve, the problem.

I know the lettuce analogy isn't realistic in today's world. I'm saying that's what it would be in an America that had their damn head screwed on straight and didn't care more about guns than their own children.

[Blackhawk]

I think we're just talking from two different stances, Blackhawk. I get what you're saying, I'm just not content with the situation we're in. What you're suggesting is happening no more than what I'm suggesting. Nothing is being done at any level to even slightly mitigate, much less solve, the problem.

This is true. And I hope nothing I said gave the impression that I'm content with the status quo, either. I want it stopped as badly as anyone else. I just want to make sure that we actually make progress, and not just spin our wheels like we have been for decades. Something something, over and over again and expecting different results.

FWIW, my argument is the same one I've been making for years - that the knee-jerk reactions leading to repeated failures to address the problem show that we need a better strategy. Not to surrender - just a better strategy. Because as far as I can tell, we're don't have a strategy. At all. We just react. And our reactions are predictable, so the other guys - who absolutely have a strategy - have no trouble slapping it all down.

[Victoria Raverna]

What better strategy? Until the victims are family members of the pro gun politicians, they're not likely to stop supporting gun lobbyists.

So maybe just ignore the problem until there are more and more shootings until eventually the problem are going to affect those politicians? But that also means it'll get worse for everyone else.

[LawBeefaroni]

Sure. But then the general voter screams that we have to solve the problem here and now, and rejects any solution that doesn't end the threat immediately ("It's not enough!"), while suggesting absurd solutions (like banning all firearms, or limiting them to a three-round capacity) that will never happen, followed by voting out any pro-gun-control politicians who don't try extreme measures that will never get passed and serve mostly to inflame the opposition...

Well that's certainly an interesting take. The problem with getting gun control legislation passed is because the left is too extreme.

Over and over and over again the left has tried to pass common sense gun control legislation in various states. Not extreme. Not banning all firearms. Simple things like background checks and red flag laws *that most responsible gun owners WANT* and the GOP has continuously shot every bit of it down. Over and over and over. The problem does not lie with people who want stronger oversight on these weapons. The problem lies with people who continuously find ways to make excuses as to why this problem can't be solved.

20 or so states have red flag laws. Several state have magazine capacity restrictions 2 states have AWBs.

Not everything gets shut down but AWBs are on the extreme end (and unlikely to survive the current SCOTUS). Red flag laws (RPOs, etc) tend to do better.

Conversely, Oklahoma has an anti-red flag law. 28 states are "constitutional carry" states, meaning no permit is required to carry.

While laws adhere to state lines, guns generally don't. As long as we're a divided nation, we won't solve the gun problem.

[Blackhawk]

What better strategy? Until the victims are family members of the pro gun politicians, they're not likely to stop supporting gun lobbyists.

So maybe just ignore the problem until there are more and more shootings until eventually the problem are going to affect those politicians? But that also means it'll get worse for everyone else.

See my posts on this topic. I've suggested strategies (and admitted at the time that they were half-assed, but still provided an example of an alternative approach.) What I know for sure is that trying to pass sweeping laws, or even small laws that touch on certain hot-button ideas, and failing is just as bad as doing nothing (and is likely worse, as it strengthens the pro-gun faction.)

Can Maine upgrade their yellow flag to red without it being blocked or struck down? Maybe, and I hope they do. I just don't think much can happen beyond that, not by tackling it head-on. That path forward has been very effectively blocked by people who do have a strategy.

[Punisher]

What I know for sure is that trying to pass sweeping laws, or even small laws that touch on certain hot-button ideas, and failing is just as bad as doing nothing (and is likely worse, as it strengthens the pro-gun faction.)

If I wasn't clear before (very possible), this is what i meant about the the current strategy not working for the anti gun people.
Sometimes just doung anything IS worse than doing nothing.
The way I see it is that both sides have their strong supporters and not much is gonna change their minds.
What both sides are trying to do is win over the people in the middle.
In general if you see side A try something multiple times and fail, it makes side B look stronger which may make people switch to that side.
If the antigun people try making laws and either they dont do anything to change shootings the other side will just say that the antigun people are trying to take your guns as a show of power.
If the antigunners get a law through that the SC eventually says is unconstitutional that the progun will just say see, this is even worse! They are actively trying to break the constitution. Doesn't matter if its not true. That will be the perception and perception=reality.

As I've said before, while i am progun for responsible gun owners, I'm ok with certain things being implemented such as background checks, 2 week waiting periods, maybe even mental health check approvals with limitations such as the requestor has to show an intent to do harm, not just a general depressed diagnosis or something that shouldn't affect gun ownership. I still think there should be blowback to prevent abuse of the sysyem though. This all needs to be free tjough do it doesn't prove as a barrier to thise with lower income.

[YellowKing]

That sounds like admitting defeat and that we're just going to learn how to live with it because fixing it is too hard. I don't buy that theory at all.

[Unagi]

That sounds like admitting defeat and that we're just going to learn how to live with it because fixing it is too hard. I don't buy that theory at all.

You can’t even get your well meaning parents to listen to their beloved son on ‘mind changing’ ridiculous positions that aren’t even supported by constitutional amendments, and I think you’ve concluded it just isn’t worth the effort/reward/discord .

How does that affect your theory on this topic.

[YellowKing]

The majority of gun owners support better laws. This isn't a matter of a majority of the American people holding up progress. It's the gun lobby and the GOP shutting down any reasonable measure.

[GreenGoo]

Ta da! And that's how you derail any serious discussion of the problem.

Let's meet here again next week for the new shooting.

[Smoove_B]

The majority of gun owners support better laws. This isn't a matter of a majority of the American people holding up progress. It's the gun lobby and the GOP shutting down any reasonable measure.

Yes, apparently the NRA is already floating ads against House Speaker Johnson and his historical statements supporting tighter gun regulations.

[LawBeefaroni]

The majority of gun owners support better laws. This isn't a matter of a majority of the American people holding up progress. It's the gun lobby and the GOP shutting down any reasonable measure.

Yes, apparently the NRA is already floating ads against House Speaker Johnson and his historical statements supporting tighter gun regulations.

The NRA is losing membership. And their existing membership numbers are padded, to put it generously. They are no longer a giant voting block and sooner or later politicians will figure this out. And when donations start to decline as well, they'll drop the NRA faster than their first wives.

[Blackhawk]

Which reinforces my idea that part of the complete solution is time.

And before I get accused of making excuses or surrendering, I'm not suggesting doing nothing. I'm suggesting that we stop shooting ourselves in the foot and do smarter things to set the stage for bigger actions later.

And, as I said before, now is absolutely not the time to push controversial issues (on this or any other important matter) when the right is rubbing their hands together waiting for us to give them yet another case they can drag in front of the Supreme Court to lock down an extreme interpretation and set us back decades.

We've become the mechanism of our own defeat. We have got to stop trying to win by feeding the right exactly what they need to beat us.

Sometimes the best way to make progress is to slow down, no matter how much we want to rush.

[Pyperkub]

The majority of gun owners support better laws. This isn't a matter of a majority of the American people holding up progress. It's the gun lobby and the GOP shutting down any reasonable measure.

Yes, apparently the NRA is already floating ads against House Speaker Johnson and his historical statements supporting tighter gun regulations.

The NRA is losing membership. And their existing membership numbers are padded, to put it generously. They are no longer a giant voting block and sooner or later politicians will figure this out. And when donations start to decline as well, they'll drop the NRA faster than their first wives.

Hence the NRA trying to make an impression by getting even more extreme. They need to keep up their lifestyles...

[Carpet_pissr]

Gah. While we’re at least talking about but not acting on the ‘obvious to even children’ problem here, this particular case needs serious scrutiny from a ‘we need to do better re: responding to threats/calls’ perspective.

Parts of this have been mentioned upthread, but apparently even more flags were thrown up about this guy:

Spoiler:

“reports are emerging that reveal the shooter was previously denied the purchase of a gun silencer and had been alerted to law enforcement weeks before the mass shooting.

Authorities on Monday said that Card’s “concerned” family had alerted the local sheriff about his mental health – and that they were concerned he had access to firearms – in May this year. (Why is “concerned” in quotes, here? Seems weird).

The Maine National Guard had also asked local police in September to check on the US Army reservist amid concerns that he would “snap and commit a mass shooting”, according to CNN.”

This seems to be as clear cut as it gets in terms of ‘see something, say something’ but that mentality of vigilance also demands a response from LE. People will stop reporting if that results in situations like this, no matter if it’s due to poor laws, failure to follow-up by LE or whatever the reason.

Different perspective: Think how it must have felt to be one of the (apparently) many people that warned someone about this guy, on the day of the shooting.

[Isgrimnur]

It appears that the suspect in the Maine shooting, Robert Card, fell through the cracks of these laws, according to officials.

OOPS! All Cracks!

[Unagi]

It appears that the suspect in the Maine shooting, Robert Card, fell through the cracks of these laws, according to officials.

OOPS! All Cracks!

Nailed it.

[Jaymon]

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens


Published May 27, 2014



"ISLA VISTA, CA—In the days following a violent rampage in southern California in which a lone attacker killed seven individuals, including himself, and seriously injured over a dozen others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Tuesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said North Carolina resident Samuel Wipper, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what he really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past five years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.”"



narrator - Absolutely nothing has changed since then.

[Victoria Raverna]

One thing changed, there are more mass shootings in 2023 compare to 2014.

[Pyperkub]

A look at some of the Shootings in this thread - and just how insane the impacts of AR-15's are in our schools and society:

But the full effects of the AR-15’s destructive force are rarely seen in public.

Colt acquired the AR-15 patent and trademark from Armalite in 1959. The patent expired, leaving many companies to produce their own weapons, commonly called AR-15-style rifles. While Colt still holds the trademark, “AR-15” has become a ubiquitous term for a popular style of gas-operated, magazine-fed semiautomatic rifle. For this reason, we refer to the rifle broadly as the AR-15 in this series.

The impact is often shielded by laws and court rulings that keep crime scene photos and records secret. Journalists do not typically have access to the sites of shootings to document them. Even when photographs are available, news organizations generally do not publish them, out of concern about potentially dehumanizing victims or retraumatizing their families.

Now, drawing on an extensive review of photographs, videos and police investigative files from 11 mass killings between 2012 and 2023, The Washington Post is publishing the most comprehensive account to date of the repeating pattern of destruction wrought by the AR-15

Some photos are VERY disturbing, as well as the stories. These are a couple of the tamer images of our insanity:

Spoiler:

[Victoria Raverna]

They need to show more of those and keep sending pictures like those to anti gun control politicians to show them the actual cost of having freedom to own guns.

[Alefroth]

I don't think they are unaware of the carnage.