Another Mass Shooting in the Good Ol' USA

[GChief]

Originally Posted by barbara

GChief, I am not advocating getting rid of all guns. In fact, I have not heard of anyone advocating for that. From what you have written it seems to me you have an all or nothing viewpoint. Perhaps I am wrong but that is how I read your words.

Not at all and apologies if I was not clear, thought I was with comments like "I am all for common sense regulations" . My point is keeping guns from the wackadoodles is the answer, only banning certain types or all guns will never get us there. I think the people side of it will be more productive along with some restrictions/laws/regulations whatever we need to call it. Its is a multifaceted issue. There is no one size fits all solution.

IMO its is a knee jerk reaction to look at the scary looking gun and blame it for killing someone, there has to be a person with intent holding it.

[barbara]

Well that is just the thing, GChief, it is not just the gun and it is not just the person.

[GChief]

But people that choose to kill other people are the problem. The scary "assault rifles" do not account for the majority of murders, its handguns. Even if you account for the "other firearm" category it is still pistols.

The AR looks the part so it gets the statistically unjustified share of the spotlight.

I used the 2019 report because there are some questions on the accuracy of the 2020 and 2021 FBI data. Of course the 2022 is not out yet.

Again I am all about "gun control" that is not formed from a position of ignorance of weapons and talking points.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ta-table-8.xls

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Including the pattern of unimpeded access to weapons of war?

BTW, just saw this:

The epidemic of school shootings is a uniquely American problem. From 2009 to 2018, there were 288 school shootings in the United States. The country with the second-highest number? Mexico, which recorded eight."

https://s2.washingtonpost.com/camp-rw/

Do you honestly believe that every other country in the world has cracked the code and that this code has nothing to do with easy access to firearms?

No. I believe that this country has all but abandoned its mentally ill, leaving them on the streets, untreated, or misdaignosed an inadequately treated.

Resdiential publicly-funded mental health facilities - what used to be called asylums - no longer exist in the US, a process called deinstitutionalization. That reflects a world-wide trend that was driven by:

1) A change in public perception about such facilities.
2) More widespread use of pharmaceuticals for treatment.
3) A desire for states and counties to reduce costs.

There are residential private institutions, but there are less than 20 in the US. They are small and quite expensive.

That's all fine and dandy, except it beg's the question: "OK, now what?" The trend to close these facilities started in the 1960's. Here's a great article from NPR about it:

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/30/56747...-health-crisis

You'll note the reference in the article that states "most mental health professionals vehemently disagree" that mass shooters and mental health have no connection. I thnk more recent information, some posted in this thread, strongly suggests otherwise.

I think it more likely that other countries have "cracked the code" - or at least have a better handle - on how to manage these types of cases. I also think that the "focus on guns" in these cases decreases the likelihood in getting at the true root causes that render more effective intervention and treatment for these individuals.

[whell]

By the way: individual arrested in CO who was planning to attack multiple schools.

https://krdo.com/top-stories/2023/04...ool-shootings/

Reading the story, you'll note some common elements with the "profile" discussed earlier in the thread:

1) Suicidal thoughts/fantasies
2) Anger at specific people or groups
3) evidence of mental health issues.
4) Telling others about their intention to attack schools.

[barbara]

GChief, there is no doubt that people who want to kill are part of the problem. The other part of the problem is easy access to guns and lack training. Not to mention the many other parts like culture etc. As to the difference between pistols and high powered guns, I do not doubt your statistics but the difference for me is the degree of fatality of each. Depending on where you are hit with a pistol you might make it. Not true with the assault type weapon.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

By the way: individual arrested in CO who was planning to attack multiple schools.

https://krdo.com/top-stories/2023/04...ool-shootings/

Reading the story, you'll note some common elements with the "profile" discussed earlier in the thread:

1) Suicidal thoughts/fantasies
2) Anger at specific people or groups
3) evidence of mental health issues.
4) Telling others about their intention to attack schools.

And all these prospective shooters need to do is stroll down to Walmart and come out armed better than a Marine prepared to storm the beaches at Iwo Jima.

[GChief]

Originally Posted by barbara

Depending on where you are hit with a pistol you might make it. Not true with the assault type weapon.

While I understand why you say this it is one of the positions of ignorance of weapons I mentioned. Your statement is far from an absolute.

The pics of the "assault type weapon" I posted above would do minimal damage when compared to any pistol round short of the same .22lr it is chambered for. Its the caliber (ballistics) of the round not what it is being shot from, none things like longer barrels etc all have an effect but not at the distances we are discussing.

So your statement is partially correct.

And I am not dismissing what you are saying, just trying to have a factual discussion.

[GChief]

Originally Posted by finnbow

And all these prospective shooters need to do is stroll down to Walmart and come out armed better than a Marine prepared to storm the beaches at Iwo Jima.

Come on man... you can not do that at a Walmart. Don't start making shit up.

And if they could, being able to report these people when needed would cause a failure of the background check so they would walk out empty handed.

BTW I would take my M1 any day over my AR when the SHTF.

[Pio1980]

As long as there are folks who believe the purpose of the 2nd is to enable armed insurrection against a govt that doesn't conform to their social agenda, accountability of custodianship and distribution to responsible trustworthy persons will be impossible.
As it stands, it's baked into the system that any person may freely acquire as many weapons and associated supplies in any quantity by whatever means workable, and removing them for cause will be a risky dangerous and likely temporary business for those tasked to perform it.