• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Today's Mass Shooting (2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Political action is the only way to prevent or even just somewhat mitigate incidents like these, so it makes no sense to arbitrarily impose some "no political talk around this incident for X amount of time" rule.

But if you insist on doing so, I would point out that it has been a week and a half since the weekend of carnage that included separate mass shootings in Buffalo, Los Angeles, Chicago, and elsewhere; surely that's a long enough delay that it's now okay to "politicize" those incidents instead. The arguments and talking points will be largely the same.
 
Nessie said:
I do not think the post Hillsborough and Dunblane restrictions on type of firearm have made any difference. As Cumbria and Plymouth have shown, it is still possible to kill many people with the types still allowed.
Click to expand...

You can't kill a couple of dozen as fast as you can pull the trigger though.
 
Rolling Stone (via Yahoo News) has a piece on Fox News coverage of the shooting. Lots of short clips to back-up what the reporter asserts:

Fox News’ Coverage of the Uvalde Shooting Was Sickening
The reaction was especially egregious on Fox News, which decided to put bloviating pundits front and center as information about what happened became public, ignore even the most basic tenets of journalism in favor of reckless speculation, and bring on a steady procession of “experts” to offer harebrained solutions for the epidemic of people with guns killing people in schools. Here are a few examples of what the network broadcast to millions of Americans trying to make sense of what happened in Uvalde: ...
Click to expand...
 
Captain_Swoop said:
You can't kill a couple of dozen as fast as you can pull the trigger though.
Click to expand...

I wonder if individual shots are not more accurate and allow more shots, than just squeezing the trigger and loads of bullets fly.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Rolling Stone (via Yahoo News) has a piece on Fox News coverage of the shooting. Lots of short clips to back-up what the reporter asserts:

Fox News’ Coverage of the Uvalde Shooting Was Sickening
Click to expand...

David WarMonger Frum had a pretty good comment about Fox the other day:

I sometimes ponder the genius of a communications machine that can toggle so smoothly between

"They're sexualizing Mickey and Goofy!"

and

"They're DE-sexualizing M&Ms!"
Click to expand...
 
You want to talk about a mealy-mouthed, cliche'-drenched nonsense speech? Look no farther than what Greg Abbott just provided. The same old crap we've come to expect from gun rights advocate like him: Oh, the children! Oh, the families! Our hearts are broken! We need to come together as a community and give the families support! It's all about mental illness!" Blah, blah, blah... Not a damn word about the fact this 18 yr old could legally buy two AR15's and body armor. Not a damn word about guns access. Not a damn word about doing anything to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. THAT is "mealy-mouthed, cliche'-drenched" platitudes coming from Gov. Abbott who is going to headline the NRA meeting next week.

Beto O'Rourke stood up after Abbott was done and lambasted him said that insanity is allowing an 18 year old to legally buy AR15's without a background check. He got shouted down by the likes of Ted Cruz, Mr. Gun Money, about how this "was not the time to politicize this" (where have we heard that before?) and thrown out. Abbott and his gun-loving supporters didn't want to hear it or answer O'Rourke. They just wanted to silence him.

Abbott then went on to defend their gun law by telling us that 18 yr olds could by "long gun" (rifles) for the last 60 years and asked why, for the majority of those 60 years, they didn't have school shootings? He says he doesn't know the answer to that. Liar. We know why: failure to pass effective gun control laws predominantly fought by the GOP like him and Cruz, hate driven social media increasing radicalization, nationalism, and white supremacy, and the right-wing extremists taking control of the GOP.

Abbott touted his record on "school safety" laws. Once again, they want to deal with "solutions" that do not address the source of the problem: the lack of meaningful gun control.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
For some reason I have the suspicion that he wasn't really worried about the credit card bill coming due.
Click to expand...

Since you brought it up, the credit card companies could easily refuse to allow guns and ammunition to be charged, and/or could refuse to offer their services to outlets that sell them. That might not make a huge dent, but it would at least convey the message that guns aren't ordinary consumer products.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Give me an AR and you start running, we'll find out.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see a type of gun, shots fired, people hit study of mass shootings to see how much of an effect the type of gun has. I get the theory of a gun with lots of bullets and no need to constantly reload, allows more kills than a single shot, regular reload weapon. But what difference does it really make?

Hungerford - 2 x semi auto rifles and a handgun - 16 deaths, 15 injured
Dunblane - 4 x handguns - 16 deaths, 15 injured
Cumbria - 1 x shotgun, 1 x bolt action rifle - 12 deaths, 11 injured
Plymouth - 1 x shotgun - 5 death, 2 injured.

Another factor is movement. Dunblane was all inside one school, Hungerford and Plymouth were over shorter distances, but Cumbria was over a long distance as that shooter drove around.

Another factor is the shooter. The least known mass shooting in the UK was Monkseaton in 1989, when a male took his father's shotgun and shot at 17 people, killing 1 and injuring 14.

I am not convinced the type of gun is a major factor in how many die in mass shootings.
 
Nessie said:
I wonder if individual shots are not more accurate and allow more shots, than just squeezing the trigger and loads of bullets fly.
Click to expand...

In a small room, victims would have a better chance of charging someone between shots from a bolt-action rifle, or as he reloads after he fires the four or five rounds it holds. And you understand that AR15s etc. are semi-autos, right? They fire one shot per trigger pull -- very fast. They can be aimed quite accurately.
 
Last edited:
Point of information. Seventeen deaths at Dunblane. Sixteen small children and their teacher.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
so people just hide them under the bed. or practice until they can change mags real quick.
Click to expand...

Sure - but the supply gradually dwindles.

And in the midst of a mad adrenaline rush, even a practiced shooter might still fumble while trying the switch out those mags. That slows things down - sometimes that's enough.
 
Updated information, according to press conferences with authorities:

1. The shooter wasn't wearing body armor after all. He had a tacti-cool vest which did have pockets for armor plates, but didn't have any armor plates in them.

2. The two AR-15 style rifles used in the mass shooting were recently obtained. The shooter bought the first rifle on May 17 which was his 18th birthday. The next day he bought 375 rounds of ammunition, and on May 20 he bought the second rifle. All purchases were made at the same store.

3. He lived with his grandmother, the one he shot before the school massacre. She is still alive, as of now.

4. 30 minutes before the attack, he sent a series of private Facebook messages to someone. The first one stated that he was going to shoot his grandmother, the second that he had done so, and a third stating he was going to shoot up an elementary school.
 
Nessie said:
It would be interesting to see a type of gun, shots fired, people hit study of mass shootings to see how much of an effect the type of gun has. I get the theory of a gun with lots of bullets and no need to constantly reload, allows more kills than a single shot, regular reload weapon. But what difference does it really make?

Hungerford - 2 x semi auto rifles and a handgun - 16 deaths, 15 injured
Dunblane - 4 x handguns - 16 deaths, 15 injured
Cumbria - 1 x shotgun, 1 x bolt action rifle - 12 deaths, 11 injured
Plymouth - 1 x shotgun - 5 death, 2 injured.

Another factor is movement. Dunblane was all inside one school, Hungerford and Plymouth were over shorter distances, but Cumbria was over a long distance as that shooter drove around.

Another factor is the shooter. The least known mass shooting in the UK was Monkseaton in 1989, when a male took his father's shotgun and shot at 17 people, killing 1 and injuring 14.

I am not convinced the type of gun is a major factor in how many die in mass shootings.
Click to expand...

I likewise doubt it would make much difference for these kinds of spree shootings. Target selection seems to make more of a difference than anything.

All the victims from this recent shooting were in the same classroom. I really doubt the outcome would have been different had he used different guns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom