Cont: Today's Mass Shooting (2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dr.Sid said:
He didn't handle them in irresponsible manner BEFORE the act.

Come on people, you really enjoy pointless bickering that much ?
Every time you have to guess what the other person wants to say, to some extent. But why go for the worst possible alternative you can think of ?
Click to expand...

No, I was genuinely taken aback by his comment... he bought a gun on his 18th birthday then shot his grandmother and a bunch of school kids and teachers... how can one be more irresponsible? I'm not sure if the commentator was being sarcastic or not. Besides which I haven't seen any evidence that he was safe/responsible or not in the (checks notes), 8 days between buying the AR-15 and the shooting. Its not like he was a long time gun owner who was safe for decades before the shooting.
 
Raising the age to buy a gun (or at least a semi-automatic) to 21 should be a non-issue. Twenty-five would be better, especially since that's the age associated with brain maturation. As I recall from public opinion surveys, people on average believe women reach adulthood at 25, and 26 for men; a popular provision under the ACA allows children to be on a parent's health insurance until 26).

If these demented males do not age out of their more demonic fantasies, they'll probably rack up lesser criminal charges, which could will it more difficult to acquire a firearm. Or maybe they'll get treatment. In any event, there's a better chance they'll be on someone's radar. On the downside, there will be the pain of having to endure the type of brainless arguments one sees over alcohol: "I can serve my country at 18, but I can't drink a beer?!" Ugh, I don't think I can handle that. Yeah, just leave it at 18. The extra bloodshed is worth it.
 
Bob001 said:
Here what he said. Pay particular attention to what funeral home workers told him about preparing the bodies. Let us know what you find so objectionable.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...h-actor-and-uvalde-native-matthew-mcconaughey
Click to expand...

The part I found most harrowing was the part about the little girl who had painted a red "A" on one toe of her green Converse shoes.. They were still on her body when she was found... it was the only way they could identify her - she was completely unrecognizable because her body was so badly mutilated by the exit wounds from AR-15 bullets.
 
smartcooky said:
The part I found most harrowing was the part about the little girl who had painted a red "A" on one toe of her green Converse shoes.. They were still on her body when she was found... it was the only way they could identify her - she was completely unrecognizable because her body was so badly mutilated by the exit wounds from AR-15 bullets.
Click to expand...


Many of the kids could only be identified by DNA.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...valde-shooting-victims-finds-bodies-rcna30632
 
Thermal said:
Why are people so hot to exclude .22LR? After 9mm, it's the most commonly used round to kill in the US. Cheap and plentiful and nasty due to the tumbling effect.
Click to expand...
That would be .22 handguns, not rifles.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
And yet multiple sources say it was successful.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
From your own link.
A 2018 Rand review found two studies that looked at the impact of assault weapons laws, including the 1994 federal law, on mass shootings that controlled for other factors which affected mass shootings. The results were inconclusive with the 2015 Gius study showing an impact while the other study did not.
Click to expand...
Link.

A 2017 review found that there was no evidence that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban had a significant effect on firearm homicides.
Click to expand...
Firearm Laws and Firearm Homicides: A Systematic Review

ProPublica piece.

Cook & Goss's article in the British Journal of Criminology.
 
catsmate said:
:rolleyes:
From your own link.

Link.


Firearm Laws and Firearm Homicides: A Systematic Review

ProPublica piece.

Cook & Goss's article in the British Journal of Criminology.
Click to expand...
From my link? There's no link in the post you quoted. If you are referring to my previous post, I used that as a source for the definition of an assault weapon, not as a source supporting my claim the law stopped some mass shootings.

If you look at my next post you'll see I acknowledged the studies are all over the map. People pick what they want to measure to claim the AW ban did or didn't do any good.

Bottom line, we need to start somewhere. We don't need to wait for a perfect law to start to tackle the problem.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
So that would make .22 rifles more deadly?

Why exclude it from a semi auto ban?

In the UK .22 is also excluded from the ban on semi-auto for some bizarre reason.
Click to expand...

I have a semi-auto .22 rifle that doesn’t look very scary. I can, however, carry a couple thousand rounds easily, have a (single) 25 round magazine, can hit a man-sized target at 125 meters quite easily, and can break the rifle down into 2 pieces, each of which would fit into a backpack.

A .22lr is a deadly round and I am guessing that 125 meters is well within the range that most mass shootings occur at. I don’t see much logic in excluding a .22 from a ban if a ban happens.
 
sarge said:
I have a semi-auto .22 rifle that doesn’t look very scary. I can, however, carry a couple thousand rounds easily, have a (single) 25 round magazine, can hit a man-sized target at 125 meters quite easily, and can break the rifle down into 2 pieces, each of which would fit into a backpack.

A .22lr is a deadly round and I am guessing that 125 meters is well within the range that most mass shootings occur at. I don’t see much logic in excluding a .22 from a ban if a ban happens.
Click to expand...

I'm running on the assumption that mass murderers want to look the part, and might feel stupid being the Harbinger of Death with a plinker? Kind of like the Grim Reaper showing up to harvest your soul with a BB gun? I think that accounts for the popularity of the AR in the first place.
 
lobosrul5 said:
If murdering children isn't using your guns in an irresponsible manner... uhmm what is??
Click to expand...

Because we tend to view willful criminal acts as malicious not irresponsible. That wacky hitler and his irresponsible genocide of the jews. You want irresponsible gun owners look at this family.

https://www.adn.com/nation-world/2016/12/01/after-a-toddler-accidentally-shot-and-killed-his-older-sister-a-familys-wounds-run-deep/

Not teaching the 3 year old proper muzzle discipline was a poor choice for them.
 
Thermal said:
I'm running on the assumption that mass murderers want to look the part, and might feel stupid being the Harbinger of Death with a plinker? Kind of like the Grim Reaper showing up to harvest your soul with a BB gun? I think that accounts for the popularity of the AR in the first place.
Click to expand...

You can get an AR in .22
They are popular in the UK
.
 
Cain said:
Raising the age to buy a gun (or at least a semi-automatic) to 21 should be a non-issue. Twenty-five would be better, especially since that's the age associated with brain maturation. As I recall from public opinion surveys, people on average believe women reach adulthood at 25, and 26 for men; a popular provision under the ACA allows children to be on a parent's health insurance until 26).

If these demented males do not age out of their more demonic fantasies, they'll probably rack up lesser criminal charges, which could will it more difficult to acquire a firearm. Or maybe they'll get treatment. In any event, there's a better chance they'll be on someone's radar. On the downside, there will be the pain of having to endure the type of brainless arguments one sees over alcohol: "I can serve my country at 18, but I can't drink a beer?!" Ugh, I don't think I can handle that. Yeah, just leave it at 18. The extra bloodshed is worth it.
Click to expand...

The counterargument is, if you want to shoot an AR-15/M4/M-16 at the ages of 18 to 24, then join the Army and go for an MOS where you will be handling one.
 
lobosrul5 said:
The counterargument is, if you want to shoot an AR-15/M4/M-16 at the ages of 18 to 24, then join the Army and go for an MOS where you will be handling one.
Click to expand...

*Shrugs* You already can fight for your country for 3 years before buying a beer or having a smoke.
 
sarge said:
.....
A .22lr is a deadly round and I am guessing that 125 meters is well within the range that most mass shootings occur at. I don’t see much logic in excluding a .22 from a ban if a ban happens.
Click to expand...


Sure, a .22 is a potentially deadly round. So is a well-aimed brick. But a standard .22LR has a velocity of about 1300 fps and a muzzle energy of about 140 foot-pounds. A .223 has a velocity of around 3000 fps and a muzzle energy of over 1200 ft/lbs. I'm sure you appreciate the difference. We don't send soldiers into combat with .22s.
https://winchester.com/Products/Ammunition/Rimfire/Wildcat/WW22LRB
https://winchester.com/Products/Ammunition/Rifle/USA/USA223L1

.223s make bigger holes.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...land-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

And if there's a ban on anything, it should certainly include high-capacity magazines for all calibers.

ETA: The AR15 is a marketing success more than anything else.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/31/uvalde-shooting-ar-15-interview-ryan-busse/
https://www.northjersey.com/story/n...on-became-so-popular-united-states/340964002/
 
Last edited:
catsmate said:
:rolleyes:
From your own link.

Link.


Firearm Laws and Firearm Homicides: A Systematic Review

ProPublica piece.

Cook & Goss's article in the British Journal of Criminology.
Click to expand...


It's not surprising that any kind of restrictions on rifles, scary looking assault or otherwise, would have no effect on crime statistics. After all, according to the FBI crime statistics, more people are beaten to death with blunt instruments or bare hands than are killed with rifles every year. Maybe we need to ban hammers.
 
Bob001 said:
Sure, a .22 is a potentially deadly round. So is a well-aimed brick. But a standard .22LR has a velocity of about 1300 fps and a muzzle energy of about 140 foot-pounds. A .223 has a velocity of around 3000 fps and a muzzle energy of over 1200 ft/lbs. I'm sure you appreciate the difference. We don't send soldiers into combat with .22s.
https://winchester.com/Products/Ammunition/Rimfire/Wildcat/WW22LRB
https://winchester.com/Products/Ammunition/Rifle/USA/USA223L1

.223s make bigger holes.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...land-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/
Click to expand...

Stand over there and I will shoot you with a mag full of .22lr I am sure you will be OK

A semi-auto .22 is not a brick.

Kids in classrooms are not soldiers in combat.

Are you just pretending to be stupid?
 
cmikes said:
It's not surprising that any kind of restrictions on rifles, scary looking assault or otherwise, would have no effect on crime statistics. After all, according to the FBI crime statistics, more people are beaten to death with blunt instruments or bare hands than are killed with rifles every year. Maybe we need to ban hammers.
Click to expand...

If hammers could kill a classroom full of kids from a distance in a minute and were designed with the primary purpose of killing then yes, you might have a point.

Do the ones about cars and swimming pools next, they are always funny.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom