Cont: School shooting Florida - pt 2

[alfaniner]

Show some sympathy, they've planned all year for the big day and then at the last minute these teenagers decide on a demonstration that clashes with their event!

The 420ers won't care. Or remember.

I also imagine there may be some crossover there.

(On a serious note The people of Columbine prefer to commemorate this date as a day of service to the community, not a day of protest. So, in that sense, the walkout kids may conflict with that.

I think eventually it will all level out to be Peace Day, or something.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Here's why it would work. First, some preliminaries. In the paragraph above, you say "reduce or eliminate". It's important to understand that very few people, and no one here at ISF, believes that banning or restricting assault rifles will eliminate mass shootings. It won't even eliminate mass shootings that use assault rifles. Therefore, you shouldn't say "reduce or eliminate" because the "eliminate" isn't even part of the discussion. (Introducing it is perilously close to a straw man.)

You're probably right that nobody here thinks that banning or restricting assault rifles is going to eliminate mass shootings. Obviously, that's absurd. But I don't think anybody here wants more gun control merely to reduce the number of mass shootings that involve assault rifles to a certain level and then call it a day.

If I'm wrong and all we want is to do is to reduce--not eliminate-- mass shootings, then everybody must think there is a certain number of mass shootings over a certain time period that they find acceptable. If we reduced the number of mass shootings in the United States to, say, ten per year, is that enough for us to declare that gun control has done its job and that we don't need try to reduce mass shootings any further?

No, of course not. We don't judge any gun control measures as a failure if it doesn't eliminate mass shootings. But reducing the number to zero is the ultimate goal. We just need to figure out the best way to achieve the greatest impact.

With that in mind, we now go on to the type of gun that is "rarely used in mass shootings". Now, if we follow typical ISF patterns, we could argue about what constitutes "rare", but I don't want to do that.

Why not? If you want to solve a problem it's very helpful to know what rarely causes the problem and what frequently causes the problem. That way we can focus on the most expedient way of achieving our goals. ISF people argue about what an "assault rifle" is and what it isn't but the concept of "rare" isn't contentious.

We know that they are used in some mass shootings, and we know that if we reduce gun deaths in mass shootings by one, we have reduced gun deaths in mass shootings. The exact degree by which they will be reduced could be refined by analysis of the statistics, but a reduction of one is a reduction. That's what we're talking about, right? All agreed so far?

Yes you are right. According to the WaPo, we've had 66 mass shootings in 2018. If we had had only 65 mass shootings in 2018, the number of mass shootings would be "reduced." But it's obviously absurd to believe we would be satisfied by legislation that reduced mass shootings by only one. But for the sake of argument, we'll all play along...our goal is to reduce mass shootings in the United States by one.

So, now we move on to whether the banning of sales of assault rifles will reduce deaths from mass shootings. The NRA sometimes claims that even though those weapons are illegal, that will not prevent them from being used by criminals, specifically by mass shooters. We call B.S. Of course it will. Nick Cruz could not have obtained an illegal AR-15. Adam Lanza used his mother's perfectly legal gun. She, being a law abiding citizen, would not have had one had it been illegal. Of course it would reduce the number of assault rifles available to would-be mass shooters.

I don't know what NRA claim you're referring to but I don't think the NRA claims that making a weapon illegal won't prevent it from being used by criminals. If a person is using an illegal weapon, that makes them a criminal by definition. Maybe you're thinking of "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" I don't know.

I think your point is that if AR-15s and other "assault rifles" were illegal, Nick Cruz and Adam Lanza wouldn't have been able to get the weapons they used and therefore the shootings would not have happened. But I'm not sure.

But so far we all agree with you: a) You want to reduce mass shootings by one and b) making "assault rifles" illegal will do this.

Your post focuses on the fact that a lot of mass shooters use other sorts of guns.

Well, sort of. My post focuses on the fact that a lot of mass shooters don't use "assault rifles."

It seems to suggest that a would-be mass shooter would just use a different sort of gun, the way his "peers" do, so the number of mass shootings would not be reduced by getting rid of the less popular form of gun. They would just turn to other guns that were still legal.

Yes. Obviously, that's the most likely scenario.

This is not so absurd that it deserves to be called B.S. but it's still wrong.

OK, this should be good. Explain why the most sensible way to reduce mass shootings is to ban the type of gun mass shooters don't use very often while leaving the mass shooter's weapon of choice legal.

For one thing, having such a powerful weapon makes these insecure, weak, people feel powerful. These people are compensating. You can see it all over Cruz' writings. The message is "I have a big gun! Fear me!" Some of them literally want to make sure that people remember them, and, let's be real, 2 dead and 2 wounded will make you a "mass shooter", but strictly from the bush leagues. Who wants to go out as a second rate mass shooter? When it comes to people that do use the AR-15 or other similar weapons, some of them wouldn't do it without the combination of confidence and lethality inspired by having a very powerful weapon. They would not turn to a simple pistol or shotgun. They might just stay home and grow out of it.

You seem to have great insight into the mind of the mass shooter. Unfortunately it sounds like some sort of Freudian psychobabble and you have no evidence to prove that. I'd like to see some sort of psychological experiment that gives you reason to believe that somebody thinking about a career as a mass shooter would be dissuaded from that line of work if "assault rifles" weren't available. Why do you think a mass shooter would stay home and outgrow the urge to kill lots of people if "assault rifles" weren't available when about half the mass shooter wannabes--who currently have a choice of "assault rifles" or pistols--choose pistols exclusively and the vast majority of those who choose to use "assault rifles" also choose to use pistols?

Second, among those who are determined to kill as many as they can on their way out, and would content themselves with low capacity magazines or slow fire weapons, the body count would be lowered. You say that assault rifles are not used by the majority of mass shooters, but when you get into the double digit killings, they become a lot more prominent.

Not really.

They exist for a reason. They are purchased because of their high rates of fire and fast reload capability. They work. If you want a high body count, an AR-15 is a better weapon than a revolver or a double barreled shotgun. If you lower the rate of fire, you lower the body count. The killer still achieves a mass shooting, but those 2 dead and 2 wounded are a lot less than 17 dead and 15 wounded.

So, if you outlaw or severely restrict assault rifles, some mass shootings would not happen at all, and other mass shootings would have a lower body count. Both mechanisms would result in a reduction in deaths from mass shootings.

Your argument sounds good in an academic sense but the facts on the ground don't bear them out. Pistols are the one type of gun that just about every mass shooter has used. They are the ONLY type of gun used in about half the mass shootings in the United States, including the 2007 Viriginia Tech shooting that killed 32 people. Even Adam Lanza with his mommy's manly arsenal of "assault rifles" could only manage 26.

Why not try to reduce mass shootings by more than one and go after the most dangerous weapons? Because when you ban "assault rifles" you're really talking about banning all semi-automatic rifles. What do you do when you've taken away millions of guns from millions of people and you still have hundreds of mass shootings every year?

But I will reluctantly concede your point: effectively disarming America might result in one less mass shooting. But that's not a sure thing. If it did, is it worth the effort to ban or restrict something that millions of Americans of use without causing any problems to stop the one person who does?

 

[Meadmaker]

If I'm wrong and all we want is to do is to reduce--not eliminate-- mass shootings, then everybody must think there is a certain number of mass shootings over a certain time period that they find acceptable.

Is one mass shooting, or one murder of any sort, "acceptable"? We're into semantics. There will always be murder, so there's nothing we can do to eliminate murder. We should try to reduce the numbers, but at each step, we have to look at costs and benefits.

Why not? If you want to solve a problem it's very helpful to know what rarely causes the problem and what frequently causes the problem. That way we can focus on the most expedient way of achieving our goals. ISF people argue about what an "assault rifle" is and what it isn't but the concept of "rare" isn't contentious.

Well if the concept of "rare" isn't contentious, there's no need to spend time defining it, is there?

I don't know about you, but I don't expect to "solve" any problem of gun violence by talking about it at ISF. I use these discussions to help focus my own thoughts and arguments on issues I find interesting and/or significant. If I happen to persuade someone else, that's a bonus, but people are stubborn, so that rarely happens. When it comes to discussions about what constitutes "rare", I've gotten into such before, and I've seen it happen numerous times from others. They always devolve into meaningless chatter.

Fortunately, there's no need for it, because it isn't contentious anyway.

our goal is to reduce mass shootings in the United States by one.

Correction. At least one. But you knew that.

Yes. Obviously, that's the most likely scenario.

This, on the other hand, is a contentious issue. In some cases, the most likely scenario is no mass shooting at all. It varies with the psychology of the individual shooter.

OK, this should be good. Explain why the most sensible way to reduce mass shootings is to ban the type of gun mass shooters don't use very often while leaving the mass shooter's weapon of choice legal.

Each mass shooter chooses a different weapon. For those who choose an assault rifle, they would have to make a different choice, either in the weapon, or in how to obtain the weapon. In some cases, deprived of his weapon of choice, he will choose to not commit the mass shooting at all. Also, you might be just simplifying my words, but you frequently refer to "reducing mass shootings", whereas I frequently refer to "reducing deaths in mass shootings." In this case, the distinction is significant.

You seem to have great insight into the mind of the mass shooter.

My knowledge of the subject is limited to reading about individual articles describing perpetrators and their motives and behavior that are published about specific mass shooters, or an occasional magazine article (mostly web-published) discussing the subject. I cannot claim to have researched the area thoroughly or perused academic research on it. Nevertheless, I feel at least somewhat confident in my insights, and I don't feel compelled to do the sort of research that might be able to bolster my opinions.

To be perfectly honest, if I did so, I think you would dismiss that research anyway, so there's not a lot of point to doing it. However, I will make you a promise that if you were to present some better documented findings that contradict my insights, I would read it, consider it, and comment upon it.

They are the ONLY type of gun used in about half the mass shootings in the United States, including the 2007 Viriginia Tech shooting that killed 32 people. Even Adam Lanza with his mommy's manly arsenal of "assault rifles" could only manage 26.

I've been using the term "assault rifle", but that's less accurate than the other term I sometimes use, which is "guns that can fire lots of bullets very fast." Is that what Cho used? I think he had lots of magazines, which could hold a lot of bullets, and be changed rapidly. Seems like a bad idea. Maybe those should be banned. I'll leave the specific details to legislative staffs.

Why not try to reduce mass shootings by more than one and go after the most dangerous weapons?

Again with the same question. The constitution prohibits a ban on all guns. It's a non-starter.

There might be other reasons as well, but because of the constitutional restriction, such a proposal isn't even on the table. It's not part of the discussion except by real fringe players (like one retired Supreme Court justice.)

But I will reluctantly concede your point: effectively disarming America might result in one less mass shooting. But that's not a sure thing. If it did, is it worth the effort to ban or restrict something that millions of Americans of use without causing any problems to stop the one person who does?

You're getting into straw territory here. Banning assault weapons would not "effectively disarm" America. None of the proposals being seriously considered in the wake of the Parkland murders would effectively disarm America.

Do "millions of Americans" actually use assault weapons?

When it comes to the actual number of Americans affected, and the actual manner in which they are affected, and the possibility that there would be considerably more than one mass shooting prevented, is it worth it? I think so.

 

[Meadmaker]

And today's mass shooting is brought to you by AR-15 and Waffle House.

Four dead, two wounded. Not a very impressive take, but it doesn't say how many total shots were fired. Reports say he was "having trouble with the gun", and an alert patron jumped him and seized the weapon. The most I could fire with any of my guns before having to pause for a long time would be six. Four dead and two wounded would be pretty tough with any of my guns.

 

[fagin]

But would you be naked - that might help.

 

[smartcooky]

If I'm wrong and all we want is to do is to reduce--not eliminate-- mass shootings, then everybody must think there is a certain number of mass shootings over a certain time period that they find acceptable. If we reduced the number of mass shootings in the United States to, say, ten per year, is that enough for us to declare that gun control has done its job and that we don't need try to reduce mass shootings any further?

No, this is not necessarily true.

I used to be a rugby referee. My intention at the beginning of every match was to make NO mistakes. It never happened in the 25+ years before I retired from the game; all referees make mistakes, we all know that, but that fact should never prevent us from going onto the field with the intention of making no mistakes. This is called "striving for perfection".

The same applies to reducing the number of gun murders, or the number of traffic deaths or the number of drownings etc. We know that we can never eliminate all of them, but that is the goal we should be aiming for... you never accept a "number of deaths" as low enough. If there a 120 road deaths in one year, you investigate ways of making it a lower number next year, and even lower the next year, and the next. You will likely never achieve zero, but you should not let that stop you from trying.

 

[smartcooky]

And today's mass shooting is brought to you by AR-15 and Waffle House.

Four dead, two wounded. Not a very impressive take, but it doesn't say how many total shots were fired. Reports say he was "having trouble with the gun", and an alert patron jumped him and seized the weapon. The most I could fire with any of my guns before having to pause for a long time would be six. Four dead and two wounded would be pretty tough with any of my guns.

That would that be five in the clip and one up the spout?

 

[Meadmaker]

That would that be five in the clip and one up the spout?

It's a six shot revolver.

 

[jimbob]

No, this is not necessarily true.

I used to be a rugby referee. My intention at the beginning of every match was to make NO mistakes. It never happened in the 25+ years before I retired from the game; all referees make mistakes, we all know that, but that fact should never prevent us from going onto the field with the intention of making no mistakes. This is called "striving for perfection".

The same applies to reducing the number of gun murders, or the number of traffic deaths or the number of drownings etc. We know that we can never eliminate all of them, but that is the goal we should be aiming for... you never accept a "number of deaths" as low enough. If there a 120 road deaths in one year, you investigate ways of making it a lower number next year, and even lower the next year, and the next. You will likely never achieve zero, but you should not let that stop you from trying.

Indeed - I have had some exposure to our company's approach to health and safety, just from our mandatory training courses.

We have "incidents" and "accidents". An incident is where something went wrong, but was stopped before any injury (or even damage) occurred, whilst an accident involves actual harm. We have a running total of the time between incidents - every incident is investigated as a near-miss. One can't predict the incidents in advance, but as soon as the issue is identified (by a near-miss) one can take action to prevent another failure mechanism.

Perfection is impossible, but being very good is not.

With the latest mass shooting, like this one it's obvious that many of the "near-misses" were not acted on.

 

[smartcooky]

Indeed - I have had some exposure to our company's approach to health and safety, just from our mandatory training courses.

We have "incidents" and "accidents". An incident is where something went wrong, but was stopped before any injury (or even damage) occurred, whilst an accident involves actual harm. We have a running total of the time between incidents - every incident is investigated as a near-miss. One can't predict the incidents in advance, but as soon as the issue is identified (by a near-miss) one can take action to prevent another failure mechanism.

Perfection is impossible, but being very good is not.

With the latest mass shooting, like this one it's obvious that many of the "near-misses" were not acted on.

Some years ago, I was in a discussion on a message board at "The Straight Dope", where we were talking about the Columbia disaster, and one of the participants, a poster called "Stranger on a Train" posted something that always struck me as profound. I usually only quote the the first and last part (emphasized here) but this time, I'll quote the whole thing...

THE VALUE OF FAILURE is that you almost always learn something new about what your system can or cannot tolerate, plus you are forced to look at all of the potential failure modes as part of a disciplined failure review process. It is unfortunate that the failure that led to the destruction of Columbia took so long to occur (presuming that it had to occur at all) because it brought to light literally hundreds of problems with the basic design of the Shuttle that were known from the time of the Challenger Accident Investigation Board and even from the early days of the first four operational flight tests. Had we been forced to learn that information before, it may have driven design changes in the STS system that would have moved toward a more functional and reliable system. Every time you succeed, all you learn is that you were some combination of good and lucky, and you never really know the ratio of one to the other. When you fail, you generally have a good idea of just how unlucky you were that day, and how to improve your odds tomorrow.

It does not take much word substitution to apply this to the problem of gun control. Every school and mass shooting is a failure of gun control in that it is a failure to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not be allowed to have them. Each time it happens, we find holes in the system and those holes need to be plugged. In other countries (my best examples are New Zealand and Australia) gun laws were reviewed and tightened in the wake of a major gun crime - the Kōwhitirangi Incident in October 1941 results in gun registration where there had been none before, the Aramoana Incident in November 1990 resulted in the introduction of firearms licensing and the banning of MSSAs (Military Style Semi Automatics). In Australia, the Port Arthur massacre in April 1996, resulted in massive changes to their gun laws and a buy back of over 640,000 guns. These countries, and to be fair, the UK after Dunblane, learned the value of failure and resolved to try to plug the holes that led to those failures. The USA has not only been unable to learn the value of their failures, they seem to be uninterested in plugging the holes.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Costs and benefits. I'm wondering what the benefit is of having the general public armed with semi-automatic rifles and hand guns.

 

[jimbob]

Employment for medics, lawyers and gun manufacturers?

 

[Aridas]

Costs and benefits. I'm wondering what the benefit is of having the general public armed with semi-automatic rifles and hand guns.

Hand guns are good for self-defense in some circumstances, both passively and actively. That's certainly a benefit, and one that is quite worth remembering, in part because it's one of the few actually good arguments in the NRA's arsenal. Whether it's worth the costs is rather debatable, but, as Meadmaker has repeatedly pointed out, the question of whether to ban handguns is rather moot. Handguns can certainly be restricted, though, and are, to a limited extent.


Going back a little, though -

I don't know what NRA claim you're referring to but I don't think the NRA claims that making a weapon illegal won't prevent it from being used by criminals. If a person is using an illegal weapon, that makes them a criminal by definition. Maybe you're thinking of "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" I don't know.

???

I'm just going to assume that you're playing stupid, but just because it wasn't addressed, as a reminder, it's a fairly common line of argument used by the anti-regulation crowd that making a kind of gun illegal or less accessible will not remove it from circulation immediately and entirely and that line of argument is commonly used to try to counter the various claims that doing something (anything, really) to try to reduce legal accessibility of particular types of weapons so that dangerous people will not be able to get their hands on them will have an actual effect.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Hand guns are good for self-defense in some circumstances, both passively and actively...

That is certainly a benefit, but I don't think it outweighs the costs.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Hand guns are good for self-defense in some circumstances, both passively and actively. That's certainly a benefit, and one that is quite worth remembering, in part because it's one of the few actually good arguments in the NRA's arsenal.

However it is a benefit which is required in part because of the associated costs.

 

[Aridas]

That is certainly a benefit, but I don't think it outweighs the costs.

Understandable. As I said, whether the benefits outweigh the costs is certainly debatable. Of course, that should lead to questions of what measures could theoretically and/or practically be taken to reduce the costs while preserving the benefits. Identifying groups and situations where there's a better cost/benefit ratio, for example, and identifying groups and situations where there's a much worse cost/benefit ratio would be an entirely logical, if difficult to actually act on step.

However it is a benefit which is required in part because of the associated costs.

Only partially, though, at best, and in a somewhat limited fashion even then. A much more notable cost is to be found in the increased ease and general success rates of suicide for those that have them easily available.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

That's an obviously absurd statement. If the aim is reducing the death toll from mass shootings, then taking away "assault rifles" by whatever definition you're using (to avoid the obvious bait-and-switch gotcha attempts) would be expected to achieve that aim, because a shooter with an assault rifle can fire more shots at longer range and thus kill more people than a person with a handgun. The result is that the death toll is reduced, even if it isn't eliminated.

Dave

I think death toll has much more to do with target selection and the shooter's plan than it does with the weapon. In many of these school shootings, the shooter(s) are largely unopposed and killing targets at random among those who weren't able to flee. In the Columbine shooting, the shooters basically prowled around killing until they got tired of it and offed themselves. Virginia Tech shooter entered a few rooms, eventually found the rest barricaded, then killed himself. While a semi auto rifle and/or pistol is likely the most effective weapons for committing these atrocious acts, I don't see how these shootings would have been meaningfully different if the shooters had pump action shotguns, lever action rifles, or single action revolvers.

What the most deadly shootings have in common is the shooter having free reign and a willingness to go on a suicide mission.

 

[Meadmaker]

, I don't see how these shootings would have been meaningfully different if the shooters had pump action shotguns, lever action rifles, or single action revolvers.

So why do you suppose they chose the weapon they did?

The AR-15 is specifically designed to shoot lots of bullets, very fast. Pretty much as many bullets as it can, as fast as the law allows. That's a marketing strategy. When would you need that ability?

You are right that in some of the mass shootings the high death count could be achieved by trapping many people in a confined space, in which case the choice of weapon is not as important, but in many cases, that high rate of fire was key to killing large numbers before they could flee.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

So why do you suppose they chose the weapon they did?

The AR-15 is specifically designed to shoot lots of bullets, very fast. Pretty much as many bullets as it can, as fast as the law allows. That's a marketing strategy. When would you need that ability?

You are right that in some of the mass shootings the high death count could be achieved by trapping many people in a confined space, in which case the choice of weapon is not as important, but in many cases, that high rate of fire was key to killing large numbers before they could flee.

I think they choose the AR's or other rifles like it because it's the best for their chosen mission. But I don't think that it is essential.

AR's dont shoot any more rapid than any other semi auto rifle, many of which wouldn't be affected by any assault weapon ban. The mini-14 is a commonly cited example. Same caliber as the AR, fed from a box mag. But since it's a classic rifle stock as opposed to pistol grip, it's not an "assault weapon".

Passing an AWB would certainly negatively affect gun owners who have lawful intentions for owning these firearms, but would, at best, insignificantly reduce the lethality of mass shooters, who themselves are a tiny source for gun deaths in this country. And while many Americans may see these "assault weapons" as unworthy of protection, more expansive gun bans would meet resistance of all the American casual gun owners who see their types of firearms as reasonable and worth protecting.

 

[jimbob]

I think they choose the AR's or other rifles like it because it's the best for their chosen mission. But I don't think that it is essential.

AR's dont shoot any more rapid than any other semi auto rifle, many of which wouldn't be affected by any assault weapon ban. The mini-14 is a commonly cited example. Same caliber as the AR, fed from a box mag. But since it's a classic rifle stock as opposed to pistol grip, it's not an "assault weapon".

School shootings would involve highly emotionally-charged individuals, and it's not a stretch to think that a "mean looking" weapon will be more attractive to such a person.