We have officially become inured to mass shootings.

[moondog-sparky]

before i get blasted for my "post count", please note i'm a log-time lurker who came here from across the hall many years ago. i don't post often....but i check here daily as i enjoy the generally informed folks who frequent here.

having said that...it takes a fair amount to get me to post on a forum. so here goes... to be clear, i am as disgusted and torn up about the near daily shootings as anyone. it breaks my heart to see the devastation and abuse within our society.

i'll state up front that i am a gun enthusiast who enjoys a variety of shooting sports - enthusiast, not a so-called "gun nut". i support 2A, but see myself as a supporter of personal freedoms and individual civil liberties first and foremost. and that means supporting those rights that may or may not apply, or even appeal to me. this is the thing that confounds me most when it comes to the gun issue and restrictive legislation - so often, those folks who want this legislation neither participate in shooting sports nor have any interest in firearms. yet they want to either severely limit or remove all access to a hobby that millions of americans enjoy lawfully on a daily basis. as citizens of our democracy their voice is equal, of course, but i am amazed at how few people who are against 2A and guns have such little understanding of the tool. this tends to limit any truly productive discussion on how best to manage gun control and maintain civil liberties, while ensuring safety for the populace. "ALL GUNS BAD! ZERO AR's!" is not a practical battle cry in the US.

i can assure you the vast majority of gun owners are all for better background checks, training, controlling person-to-person sales via FFL's, etc - but we are extremely concerned as to how those things will be implemented. the devil is in the details... gun owners and the NRA don't always push back "just because all legislation is bad", but more often than not it is one-sided and does not take into account the lawful gun owners. if i could be assured new regulations would limit access to folks at risk, but make it easier for law-abiding folks to move forward (for example: sbr's and suppressor purchases), then i'd be all about it. if you want my support i need to know some of the arcane and intricate laws of states like CA and NY won't be coming my way. you can't have it both ways: stricter laws on one hand and then re-shape the AR / pistol platforms in to unusable / unrecognizable tools for the end-user on the other. for nearly everyone i know screaming for red flag and background check laws i can't find a single one of those same people willing to discuss ways to make lawful ownership easier and more accessible. not one. in their second breath after more laws, they discuss ways to distort the platform in intentional ways to make it even more burdensome for lawful owners.

these are tragic killings done by remorseless monsters, no doubt. but if every time we encounter evil, abhorrent death and destruction and choose face it with cries to abolish civil liberties, where will that leave us? i'd like to pose 2 scenarios by which we could limit death and destruction (both to folks who do these things intentionally and who happen to impact innocent bystanders) and tell me if you'd be ok to limit these personal freedoms:

1. according to national stats on average 29 people die by DUI (alcohol specifically - not including drugs) each day. this is over 10,000 people, of which ~17% are <14yrs of age. clearly, we are not going to get rid of alcohol. BUT - would you be ok making it mandatory to have a breathalyzer in each and every vehicle which must be enacted for the car to start? would this really be ok with you as a law-abiding driver? or even as someone who may have 1-2 drinks at a friends house, but now have to use this tool to get home - even though you are in all likelihood "fine" to drive? (it's your judgement call, after all...)

2. nobody NEEDS a car that can accelerate from 0-60mph in under 4 seconds. or have a top speed of 150mph (or even 100mph). would you be ok limiting future car manufacture to simple, low horsepower autos that are truly safer and easier to control on our roads, especially cities? better yet, what if we installed simple software that governed your vehicles speed based on the speed limit in the area? we have that tech now - my WAZE app always tells me the speed limit for the road i'm on. it would be simple to tie that to my car so that no matter what i tried i could not speed - especially helpful when in those "pesky" school zones... here's a stat: from 1999 to 2017 199 people (50% under 20) died in high-speed street racing in LA county alone - the # of kids killed in school shootings for roughly the same period was 211 (before i get called on this, yes i think school shootings are especially horrific). speed kills. it's a fact. especially, when high powered vehicles are given to "children" and or other reckless adults. how many of the porsche enthusiasts on here speed daily? i know i do. but when i'm honest with myself, when i speed, i do open the possibility to take myself and others out. we don't NEED fast cars. but, we sure do enjoy the personal freedom and liberty they bring us.

i'm sure we could all find many other ways to limit abhorrent and needless deaths. but again, at what cost to personal freedom and civil liberty? it is not that i think gun-deaths are ok. but i do recognize no matter how true and just we feel our intentions are, we cannot legislate zero death in any arena of life. at least not without seriously affecting how we view the human necessity for choice, even if that choice often leads to violence.

[bigbill]

I think there's a lot of bluster from folks who want change. IMO, the only way to make the change is to do a root cause analysis on the changes in our culture in the past several decades. We've had AR type rifles since the late 50's, they've been available but only in the past decades have they been used in mass shootings. What changed in our society? It wasn't the introduction of the AR style guns. What made people think it was a solution to kill many people? Is it the media coverage and the brief fame of being a mass murderer? Would different news coverage discourage the shooters? Would prosecution of family members who knew of a shooter's mental condition and possession of a gun make a difference. Accessories to murder charges? We want our news and every network wants to be first because they're advertising dollars depend on it. Is the 24 hour news cycle partially to blame?

It's not the gun that changed, it's our society. We've always had guns.

[David Tollefson]

I think there's a lot of bluster from folks who want change. IMO, the only way to make the change is to do a root cause analysis on the changes in our culture in the past several decades. We've had AR type rifles since the late 50's, they've been available but only in the past decades have they been used in mass shootings. What changed in our society? It wasn't the introduction of the AR style guns. What made people think it was a solution to kill many people? Is it the media coverage and the brief fame of being a mass murderer? Would different news coverage discourage the shooters? Would prosecution of family members who knew of a shooter's mental condition and possession of a gun make a difference. Accessories to murder charges? We want our news and every network wants to be first because they're advertising dollars depend on it. Is the 24 hour news cycle partially to blame?

It's not the gun that changed, it's our society. We've always had guns.

I can't "Like" this post enough. 1000x is not enough. Thank you.

[monadnocky]

I think there's a lot of bluster from folks who want change. IMO, the only way to make the change is to do a root cause analysis on the changes in our culture in the past several decades. We've had AR type rifles since the late 50's, they've been available but only in the past decades have they been used in mass shootings. What changed in our society? It wasn't the introduction of the AR style guns. What made people think it was a solution to kill many people? Is it the media coverage and the brief fame of being a mass murderer? Would different news coverage discourage the shooters? Would prosecution of family members who knew of a shooter's mental condition and possession of a gun make a difference. Accessories to murder charges? We want our news and every network wants to be first because they're advertising dollars depend on it. Is the 24 hour news cycle partially to blame?

It's not the gun that changed, it's our society. We've always had guns.

First - meant completely sincerely - I completely agree.
Second, and related to first - it would be really awesome if serious epidemiological research for this pressing issue could be funded without NRA influence and dollars used to block it (see the Dickey amendment).

[sine]

It's not the gun that changed, it's our society. We've always had guns.

The USA has been class leader in killings by guns for many many decades.

[davids]

Two points:

First (at the risk of conjuring DeGrasse Tyson): The real problem with gun violence is not these horrific mass murders. It's the day-to-day carnage of homicide and suicide. 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides. There are plenty of other shocking statistics here if you're interested in gun violence in the United States.

Unfortunately and perversely, it takes a mass murder to get the USA to pay attention to the issue. And confused about exactly what the issue is.

Second: I can't quickly find any really long-term statistics, but from 1999-2017 the CDC shows that the death rate had been pretty constant, although rising beginning around 2013. So please don't be mislead by the nauseating upswing in sensational mass murders.

We've been consistently killing ourselves and each other for a long time. Because in the USA, we die from guns at a much, much higher rate than comparable countries. We pretend we don't know why.

fuckthishit.jpg

[woodworker]

There is no second amendment right to semi-automatic assault weapons, any more than there is a right to own mortars or hand grenades or other weapons that can kill hundreds of people in less than a New York minute.

All of this teeth-gnashing about mental illness, and a culture of violence, and bullying, etc. is just noise at the margins. The truth is that in other countries where guns of this type have been eliminated, gun deaths go down. Go figure.

...so what's the justification for allowing them. It's not the second amendment, it's not for hunting, and the slippery slope argument, that next they will come for your shotgun or handgun pales in comparison to the bodies that are heaped up each year from the barrel end of these weapons.

Good. Run your mouths, keep your weapons, search for week justifications, find excuses, and let the bodies pile up. Until it's your loved ones.

Our capacity for ignoring the suffering of others is almost beyond belief. Except that it's not.

[jclay]

I think there's a lot of bluster from folks who want change. IMO, the only way to make the change is to do a root cause analysis on the changes in our culture in the past several decades. We've had AR type rifles since the late 50's, they've been available but only in the past decades have they been used in mass shootings. What changed in our society? It wasn't the introduction of the AR style guns. What made people think it was a solution to kill many people? Is it the media coverage and the brief fame of being a mass murderer? Would different news coverage discourage the shooters? Would prosecution of family members who knew of a shooter's mental condition and possession of a gun make a difference. Accessories to murder charges? We want our news and every network wants to be first because they're advertising dollars depend on it. Is the 24 hour news cycle partially to blame?

It's not the gun that changed, it's our society. We've always had guns.

You propose that we don't have a higher concentration of center fire cartridge semi autos in society? I'd like to see the data. I knew nobody who had AR type hardware when I was young; I know a bunch now. That the AR15 is not used by the military is a specious argument (so is the "what's an assault weapon" argument); you know full well that it's as close to the same thing in every meaningful way as is possible and legal. You also know that any semi of war fighting caliber is a vastly more quick, easy to rapid fire accurately and efficient weapon than shotguns, wheel guns and bolt action weapons. If not you'd be carrying a 38 snubbie.

Societies are often in flux and certainly we're a different country than 50 years ago but one thing appears constant in epidemiological studies: Higher concentrations of firearms = higher rates of firearms deaths. While change and stresses certainly contribute (like the stress of marginalized white males having an issue with seeing non-white people competing for a piece of the pie), blaming the carnage on that is a cop out. And it only makes the case for removal of such weapons from society stronger since, clearly we cannot handle the combo platter. This isn't a boiler in a complex process line and control scheme that ruptured, requiring a root cause analysis. It's quite straight forward though I'm all for addressing the stressors of life where we can...like healthcare for all, diverting $ from the military towards education and infrastructure improvements, that sort of thing.

Comparisons with cars is also specious in more ways than one. DUI? If people got drunk and then mowed down scores of folks at a whack, when they otherwise wouldn't do so, then we might have to consider prohibition but I don't think that's happening. I'm good with alcohol and cars being legal and our continuing attempts to reduce vehicular homicides; I'd like to see the consequences get vastly more severe but I don't feel the need to attempt redress via prohibition. Semi autos serve no useful purpose in civil society and are a serious public health issue.

Personal liberties? I'd like to own some grenades and maybe a howitzer or an Exocet. It's an an unreasonable infringement on my personal liberty for society to decide that it's not such a good idea? Cmon guys.

And with that, I'm going to quietly slip off the back and go do something productive. Maybe write my state representative to express my anger at Florida allowing folks on 2 acres to set up firing "ranges", aka using a pile of dirt in your yard as a range. It's insanity.

[moondog-sparky]

/\/\/\/\/\
i hope this doesn't come out too harshly, but the above comment is what concerns me....

that is a purely emotional response (to what is a highly emotional issue, to be sure). pure lip service as to the "why" of the issue, with complete focus on the "how" to eliminate guns as the only possible solution. and...coming from the place of a non-user. and...scariest of all, hinting at no "need" for such firearms. there are many things in our lives we don't "need", but from which we take enjoyment, and limiting them simply to hope for an outcome (which may or may not occur) that statistically affects a small portion of our population does not make sense to me.

i don't like gun deaths. especially, deaths from homicidal maniacs on a rampage. but, this occurrence of mass shootings (schools, malls, etc) is still very statistically small given all gun violence. pointing this out does not make me a heartless bastard, btw. it doesn't make me any less saddened when these events occur. but, it does make me a practical person when it comes to dialogue to curtail civil liberties - especially, when i'm not convinced removing these items will dramatically reduce these occurrences.

at the risk of sounding cold and harsh, while these events do occur, i don't sit around worrying about this happening to my loved ones - again, not because i'm a heartless asshole, but rather because statistically i have a better chance of winning the lottery. and i recognize that civil liberties, of whatever flavor and nature, don't always come free.

[jlyon]

I think central planning by the government is a form of tyranny but I would be in favor of all cars having to breathalyze before driving and lower HP cars (and I am a racer at heart also but not on public streets).
But we all have to play in the same sandbox and need some rules to go by.
I do not own any guns but would support limiting magazines to 7 rounds that takes 5+ seconds to reload. Obviously if we tried to ban all firearms only criminals would have them.
Having said all of this these changes might make society feel better in the short term but will not change much if at all the amount of Drunk or other auto fatalities and attempts at mass shootings.

I think if anyone had an idea that would actually work we would already be heading that way.

[theflashunc]

/\/\/\/\/\


i don't like gun deaths. especially, deaths from homicidal maniacs on a rampage. but, this occurrence of mass shootings (schools, malls, etc) is still very statistically small given all gun violence.

And this only buttresses the point for getting rid of all guns. If spree shootings are just a small section of a much, much larger problem, then the problem is the guns. If it's used across a variety of scenarios, purposes and mental states to cause harm to someone else, then yeah, they've gotta go.

I get where you're coming from, but the train left the station a while after about the 9th or 10th attempt to get through expanded background checks or anything "reasonable" in terms of gun control that would ensure access to responsible users and try to limit access to those looking to do harm to others. Ye Gods, the latest attempt at reform on this issue this week is reviving a six-year old bill from Toomey and Manchin on the subject. Six years!

Time for all guns to go. We've proven incapable as a society in enjoying them responsibly. But if your argument boils down to the odds of it happening to me are low, so I'm fine with the status quo when the status quo is a mass shooting a day, then it's a pretty weak sauce argument.

[jclay]

What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer - The New York Times

Occam's Razor anyone?

[David Tollefson]

We've proven incapable as a society in enjoying them responsibly.

Uh, no. The statistics again. Check the number of guns owned in the US vs the number used in violent acts (actually inflated because of the number of guns used that are not "in the system"). The percentage is microscopic. The vast, vast majority of guns are NOT used in violent acts. The vast, vast majority of gun owners do not even so much as threaten to use them against another human. But go ahead and label those few who do as "society".

[woodworker]

From the above article in the NYT: "Worldwide, Mr. Lankford found, a country’s rate of gun ownership correlated with the odds it would experience a mass shooting. This relationship held even when he excluded the United States, indicating that it could not be explained by some other factor particular to his home country. And it held when he controlled for homicide rates, suggesting that mass shootings were better explained by a society’s access to guns than by its baseline level of violence."

Short answer: We're only befuddled because we want to be.

As to the claim that it's not statistically likely to impact any one of us, yes indeed that does seem "harsh." (Pro tip here: when you start your argument with, "I hope this doesn't come out too harshly..." it will be viewed that way.) I know that the chances of my family being killed by Boeing's faulty software is small, yet oddly I'm still in favor of them fixing it. Call me crazy (go ahead, I don't care), but I tend not to view our problems only in the context of the likelihood that I (or my loved ones) will be impacted personally, particularly when the results are so terrible for those who are.

...sorry if that came off harshly.

[davids]

Uh, no. The statistics again. Check the number of guns owned in the US vs the number used in violent acts (actually inflated because of the number of guns used that are not "in the system"). The percentage is microscopic. The vast, vast majority of guns are NOT used in violent acts. The vast, vast majority of gun owners do not even so much as threaten to use them against another human. But go ahead and label those few who do as "society".

Do you have a solution?

Or do you not see a problem?

[woodworker]

Uh, no. The statistics again. Check the number of guns owned in the US vs the number used in violent acts (actually inflated because of the number of guns used that are not "in the system"). The percentage is microscopic. The vast, vast majority of guns are NOT used in violent acts. The vast, vast majority of gun owners do not even so much as threaten to use them against another human. But go ahead and label those few who do as "society".

Right. Agreed that most gun owners are responsible.

I'm sure that these responsible gun owners should not be concerned then about background checks to ensure that the unreasonable gun owners don't cast a false light on them. Better to weed them out, don't you think?

I'm sure, as well, that these responsible gun owners aren't interested in semi-automatic weapons, as most profess an interest in self-defense, or hunting. ...so they should support a ban on these weapons as well. Responsible gun owners don't want to be associated with mass murderers, after all.

If you want those of us who don't have any interest in these weapons (yes, I was taught how to use them when I was younger but had no interest when I discovered bikes, books and women) to take the viewpoint of responsible gun owners into account, then the latter need to appear responsible. They need to support reasonable legislation that has worked elsewhere.

[moondog-sparky]

From the above article in the NYT: "Worldwide, Mr. Lankford found, a country’s rate of gun ownership correlated with the odds it would experience a mass shooting. This relationship held even when he excluded the United States, indicating that it could not be explained by some other factor particular to his home country. And it held when he controlled for homicide rates, suggesting that mass shootings were better explained by a society’s access to guns than by its baseline level of violence."

Short answer: We're only befuddled because we want to be.

As to the claim that it's not statistically likely to impact any one of us, yes indeed that does seem "harsh." (Pro tip here: when you start your argument with, "I hope this doesn't come out too harshly..." it will be viewed that way.) I know that the chances of my family being killed by Boeing's faulty software is small, yet oddly I'm still in favor of them fixing it. Call me crazy (go ahead, I don't care), but I tend not to view our problems only in the context of the likelihood that I (or my loved ones) will be impacted personally, particularly when the results are so terrible for those who are.

...sorry if that came off harshly.

ha! point well taken regarding the "pro tip".
but you truly missed my point. i'm not nonchalant regarding the safety or outcome of others, rather i don't sit in hysterical fear on a daily basis on this issue - nor should you or anyone else. and that "fear" does not lead me to believe we should create new laws or limitations in order to protect a very small set of people each year. again, i just tend to put personal liberty high on my list, even if allowing this liberty may cause multiple injuries or death each year.

i take heart with your boeing example and it is an extremely good point. i too agree we can't ignore this issue even though it is statistically small - we just appear to disagree on the best way to fix this. as i said earlier, there are many things with which we live on a daily basis that puts us at risk...and we don't tear our hair out and scream hysterically to fix each and everyone of them. this issue is just so horrendously tragic and graphic that it gets top billing on our fear chart.

to the gent above who mentioned he'd get concerned about my DUI reference "If people got drunk and then mowed down scores of folks at a whack...", i ask - so, it's ok if this occurs on a onesy-twosy basis?? tell that to the family of 4 here in TX hit head-on by a teen txting. or any of a myriad of families that are impacted daily by drunks on a one-on-one basis. we shouldn't need a massive drunk-kill-on-a-sidewalk spree to get serious about stopping drunk driving (breathalyzers in EVERY car??), if we are truly concerned about saving lives. i'd say we are far more inured to drunk driving than to shootings, if that is the case.

it's not that i've got a hard on for drunk driving, but rather at what point in a society do we pull out all the stops to curtail poor decision making and bad, erratic behavior? from many of the responses here, i'd say it occurs only when a particular right doesn't pertain to them... i say we should protect each and every right of the individual, no matter the personal impact it may have on us, until such point it impacts a significant portion of the population. which this just hasn't as the statistics point out time and again.

[guido]

One would think that the responsible gun owners would, being good law and order types, be first in line to provide solutions to solve the issues of suicide, crimes committed with guns or mass shooting events. To protect their good name and all.

Crickets...

Or perhaps they don't care?


Oh that's right it is the video games...

[mzilliox]

Couple of points:
how many of these atrocities were committed by previous "criminals"?
How many of the guns owned by the shooters were illegal? how many were legal?

I hear the argument that criminals will just go find a gun, yet it seems to me, these folks were not "criminals" until the act... so. how many of these cats got legal guns and were the type of "safe gun owner" that every gun owner claims to be? lets not discount the psychological affects of holding a gun in your hand. its literally an injection of mental confidence and machismo. your brain chemistry changes with one in your hand.

one cat in here stated that folks who react with emotion against guns are coming from a place of inexperience. could it not be a place if disgust? or inability to understand loving a gun (or some human made up right or whatever you think you have here) more than civil society? might it be some of us have owned guns in the past, have fired them safely, and still see no use for them in civil society? im personally against all guns, but would not go so far as vote to disallow hunters and those who feel a need for home protection to have 1 or 2 reasonable firearms for this purpose. but lets not pretend for one minute that the majority of guns owned by people aren't simply for entertainment, because they are very dangerous toys for most people. and for this i cannot get behind your right to entertain yourself with a semi auto show gun. thats selfish. i too prefer my right to feel safe in public spaces from men with semi autos to your right to own a semi auto weapon. whose right is righter? find a new healthier hobby that doesnt contribute to unnecessary death. its not asking much.

this problem is uniquely american, and the way we justify is one of the big reasons why, just look at all of the excuses. most sane people from other societies would already have laughed at this conversation as uniquely american and totally mental.

now samurai swords, im all for those, pretty useful in the home invasion fantasy too.

[theflashunc]

Uh, no. The statistics again. Check the number of guns owned in the US vs the number used in violent acts (actually inflated because of the number of guns used that are not "in the system"). The percentage is microscopic. The vast, vast majority of guns are NOT used in violent acts. The vast, vast majority of gun owners do not even so much as threaten to use them against another human. But go ahead and label those few who do as "society".

A rotten apple spoils the bunch. 33,000 gun deaths a year. A mass shooting a day.

Are you saying the level of bloodshed due to guns in this country is fine because the statistics bear that out? That even those who don't die and are maimed for life by a weapon of war sold to civilians is okay because they drew the short straw for going to the movies/school/church/Wal-mart/a garlic festival/a shitty country concert in Vegas/their job/etc etc etc on a given day?

That's a callous calculation.