Orlando

[lowend1]

That's par for the course in today's world. So many people feel the need to belong to something even though they have no connection.

Not only that, but they feel the need to be conspicuous about it.

This guy could have ben stopped long ago - he was a bad egg from childhood on, if his school records are any indication. Another gun shop owner refused to sell to him because he was asking for body armor, bulk ammo and was speaking Arabic on his phone. The owner notified the FBI, but they did nothing. This is becoming a pattern. I saw Jim Kallstrom (who I tend to believe) on TV last night, and he was saying that the politically correct protocol regarding Muslims handed down from above has tied the FBI's hands. They cannot do the things they are trained to do in investigating these situations.

[fur85]

Thanks for the excellent, civil conversation on this hard topic.

As someone who likes numbers, I found this very interesting:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/gun-violence-graphics/

The first two data points are talked about a lot, but starting at the third, I think it gets interesting.

The homicide rate in the US is less than half of what it was in 1980.

Mass shootings are not the big public health problem they're made out to be, even in the US. They are relatively low in terms of the number of deaths involved. The media spends a lot of hours on them though.

Gun violence OTOH is a public health problem, with most gun deaths being suicides (~60%). Suicide (by all methods) is also a huge public health problem and the second leading cause of death for 15-34 year olds, after accidents.

It's sad to me that the media doesn't focus on the mental health and addiction crisis in the US. 129 people die from drug overdose every day. 13% of American adults take anti-depressants. I'm not saying people with depression are violent, just that there's a big problem with mental health in the US and that the violence problem is a symptom of something bigger. Even though I hate guns and support better regulating guns I don't believe that will make much difference in our violence problem. The media should be talking more about our mental health crisis and our violence problem and less about mass shootings and gun laws.

[lowend1]

Gun violence OTOH is a public health problem, with most gun deaths being suicides (~60%). Suicide (by all methods) is also a huge public health problem and the second leading cause of death for 15-34 year olds, after accidents.

...and most suicides are not committed with a semi-automatic rifle
Since you're a "numbers guy", you'll probably find this interesting - minus the pro-gun viewpoint, of course.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE&feature=youtu.be&ab_channel=TruthRevoltOriginals

[fur85]

That was interesting. Thanks for posting it.

There is a lot of confusing correlation with causation on both sides of the issue. Looking at the countries and US cities with high murder rates, it's pretty clear that they are all poor. Murder rates and poverty seem more highly correlated than murder rates and gun ownership rates. Banning assault rifles is not going to make much difference in the total numbers since the vast majority of murders and suicides are committed with handguns.

It would be great if we could take a public health perspective on our violence problem and figure out a better way to address our mental health and addiction problems.

[Granny Gremlin]

Claiming that mass shootings are not a problem based on numbers is kinda funny to me; it's qualitatively a problem, forget irrelevant quantitative comparison to the peak homicide period in US history (rise of the drug war and crack epidemic and gang /police violence). By that logic there's no problem at all since violent crime has been on a long term downward trend since colonial times.

Numbers can be massaged to benefit either side, the trick is to look at the numbers in the most relevant way.  The FACT is, that mass murderers of random people in public in the last decade (which is a phenomenon on the rise trend-wise - we are seeing more of this type of specific act even though violence otherwise is in slow decline ) prefer semiautomatic weapons, especially the AR-15, which is the Honda Civic of assault rifles (cheap, easily modifiable; plenty of aftermarket upgrades available and DIY tutorials online).  Think about the name of that firearm category - "assault rifle" - the anti-gun movement did not come up with that, manufacturers and the military did, and it says all that needs to be said.  It's not for hunting, it's not for defense, it's for dropping as many hats as fast as possible before you get got, period.  I get it, they're cool and sexy to those inclined; that's just not a good enough reason to let just anybody have them in the name of freedom.  You must remember that freedom is finite, like wealth; the more freedom (or wealth) one person has; the less is available for everyone else (if you do whatever you want, whenever you want, there will be effects on other people, which infringes their freedom - these mass shootings are a clear example of that).  There is a balance that must be struck.  Keep your bolt actions, breach loaders and shotguns.  If that don't keep you (the proverbial you, not anyone here in particular) happy, you're obsessed to an unhealthy level; they're just things.  F1 cars are much cooler than an Audi, but we don't get to drive those around on the street, and that is also, technically, an infringement of freedom.

As for violence being a symptom of mental health, I also think you have the shoe on the other foot.  The mental health crisis is real, sure, but the violence problem existed before that, back into antiquity.  They do feed off of each other , though, in a negative cycle.  I would attribute the mental health crisis to the extremely unnatural order of things that has developed in western society as well as an increasing pace of change (social, technological, etc) that many are not ready and ill prepared for (in part due to the unnatural order). 

Despite this I strongly agree with :

It would be great if we could take a public health perspective on our violence problem and figure out a better way to address our mental health and addiction problems.

I would just add that that tactic is a long term one.  Banning assault rifles and making background checks work better and manditory in all cases with no loopholes is something that we can do now which would have some positive impact nearly immediately. But no, it won't eliminate the problem; no single tactic will, which is why a strategy must include both of these things.

[Dave W]

... Think about the name of that firearm category - "assault rifle" - the anti-gun movement did not come up with that, manufacturers and the military did, and it says all that needs to be said.  It's not for hunting, it's not for defense, it's for dropping as many hats as fast as possible before you get got, period....

Not quite. The military came up with the term "assault rifle"  for fully automatic rifles. Not for the likes of the AR-15. "Assault weapons" is a term invented by gun control advocates. It describes semi-automatic weapons that look like fully automatic weapons. It isn't a legal classification. They are one shot per trigger pull, just like any double action revolver.

I would just add that that tactic is a long term one.  Banning assault rifles and making background checks work better and manditory in all cases with no loopholes is something that we can do now which would have some positive impact nearly immediately. But no, it won't eliminate the problem; no single tactic will, which is why a strategy must include both of these things.

Assault rifles are already banned unless you have a Class III Firearms license. There was an "assault weapons ban" in effect for 10 years in the US (1994-2004). It didn't reduce the murder rate or mass shootings.

I think the increase in mass shootings since then is at least partially driven by the rise of the internet, especially social media. Crazy people who want to make a statement can make themselves known to everybody and promote hysteria.

[lowend1]

Thank you, Dave - I've grown weary of having to post those exact thoughts over and over again in other venues. There are scores of semi-auto rifles made, and trying to ban one specific model will open a Pandora's Box re the others.
There have been crazy people forever, probably - and there have been violent deaths ever since Zog first bashed another Early Man in the head with a rock. The mental health issue is complex, but I frankly don't see a way to effectively handle it other than depriving the afflicted of some civil rights. That may sound harsh, but the effects of the ACLU and progressive movement back in the 60s (in this particular area) have clearly made the world - and the USA in particular - a more dangerous place. Used to be, if you were crazy, you got locked up.
We also live in a world where there exists a dichotomy - one where cultures that have yet to evolve beyond the tribal phase have adopted modern technologies - which they neither respect nor understand beyond using them for the most primitive of purposes. There's always a market for a more effective way of killing.

[Granny Gremlin]

Not quite. The military came up with the term "assault rifle"  for fully automatic rifles. Not for the likes of the AR-15. "Assault weapons" is a term invented by gun control advocates. It describes semi-automatic weapons that look like fully automatic weapons. It isn't a legal classification. They are one shot per trigger pull, just like any double action revolver.

I stand corrected, but (as demonstrated by the case of the AR-15) many semi-auto 'assault weapons' can very easily be modified by the user to be actual full auto  "assault rifles". 

[Psycho Bass Guy]

I stand corrected, but (as demonstrated by the case of the AR-15) many semi-auto 'assault weapons' can very easily be modified by the user to be actual full auto  "assault rifles".

If anyone is dumb enough to put a Hellfire Trigger in an AR, they'll deserve what it does to them. Any serious shooter with an intent to kill the greatest number of people, which includes the supposed "nutjobs" who carry out mass shootings, is going to favor a semiauto anyway, and NOT a rifle or even a carbine. It will never be reported, but the majority of those killed will have died from handgun wounds, not .223 rifle bullets, even including those inadvertently shot by police (AR-15's and M-16's are standard SWAT weapons).

...been preoccupied with other things and not dredging- this is my first read of this thread. I'll come out and say what others have implied, the shooter could not have been a more perfect poster child to advance gun control, and it just supposed to be coincidence that the FBI had pre-existing relationship with him and that he somehow managed to maintain a security clearance that is hard enough for folks who have NEVER been on a terror watch list to attain? Piss on my back and tell me it's raining.

The real issue is not one of firearms but of safety and security, and unlike the weapons being demonized, not a single law enforcement agency from the local to the national level did its job at a level anywhere near competency. If "assault weapons" are banned, are those new laws going to be enforced by the same clowns who can't uphold the ones we have already? I would be much more open to revisiting government oversight of firearms IF the government could demonstrate that it could use such power to any better effect than exists under the laws we now have.

I won't even begin to address the bullshit so-called "news" about this! Thankfully I don't have to put up with the sanctimony anymore that was always overflowing from the newsroom about guns, yet whenever there was a scary guy at the station door, I was was breathlessly asked if I was armed (wasn't) and would I mind answering the door. A CNN "profile" I saw of the Sig AR that was used made me seriously want to punch the "reporter" in the face, and I AM a "left-winger!!"

[Granny Gremlin]

It will never be reported, but the majority of those killed will have died from handgun wounds, not .223 rifle bullets, even including those inadvertently shot by police (AR-15's and M-16's are standard SWAT weapons).

This may be true (I have no idea), but I'm not exactly of a mind that semi pistols with 9+ mag capacity should be legal either.  Just try mass murdering with a revolver; get swarmed on the reload. 

The real issue is not one of firearms but of safety and security

Careful, you're on a slippery slope there.

Again, I don't think anyone is claiming that the only problem is the guns and that outlawing them is a magic fix, BUT, we know with absolute certainty that 1)statistically, the more guns are around, the more people get killed (may just be correllation, not causation, but that is still significant as a factor) and 2) it is too easy for any old shmuck to get a gun.  If you need a gun immediately (a 3 day background check is going to ruin it for you) then you're most likely up to no good anyway.  And despite all the it's-not-the-AR15's-fault arguments I hear, not one person has countered the argument, as far as I am aware (made by many responsible gun owners/afficandos themselves) of what the hell you actually need one of those for?  Just like assault weapons, I similarly see no reasonable justification for semi handguns either. In fact both are very rare up here - it IS legal to own them after a long process; few do, because when it comes down to it, there's no reason other than having a cooler toy.  And there are levels of ownership - it is truely rare that you can keep one at home (again, poeple figure the process isn't worth it, but if you're stubborn enough and sane you can do it); most people who have them have to store them at the gun club where they are members (and you have to be a member of a legit gun club to get your license - ensures you have some training and supervision at least).

[Psycho Bass Guy]

This may be true (I have no idea), but I'm not exactly of a mind that semi pistols with 9+ mag capacity should be legal either.  Just try mass murdering with a revolver; get swarmed on the reload. 

Not quite. There are plenty of drop-in carousel revolver clips that make reloading one just as fast as a magazine being plunked into a normal semi-automatic action pistol.  If the reports are to be believed, with the volume of fire the offender supposedly laid down with his weapons, he HAD to have reloaded his magazines anyway. Ever load .223 into a 30 round mag? It is NOT a fast process no matter how practiced. The number of shots fired is only one of the many, many things about this incident that doesn't add up. The national news media was so busy frothing at the mouth to pin the evil on the rifle that almost of all the "reports" have been thinly veiled editorials with huge holes in the facts that are not and never will be addressed. Supposedly he fired over 1000 rounds. ...and not a single person thought of charging him once in the entire THREE HOURS that the rampage lasted even though he had to reload a MINIMUM of 35 times??? Patrons were quick enough to take Snapchat videos but NOT to tackle him???Even with pre-loaded magazines, reloading requires time and BOTH hands to execute (so he couldn't cover himself with the pistol during the procedure.)  Not ONCE in over 30 changes did someone rush him?

Careful, you're on a slippery slope there.

Nope; the incompetents of the police don't get to say, 'We could have stopped this if we had only had MORE power even though we didn't even utilize the ones we already possess."

Again, I don't think anyone is claiming that the only problem is the guns and that outlawing them is a magic fix,

...then you're not paying attention because that is precisely what is being bandied about by the vast majority of supposed
"news" stories.

BUT, we know with absolute certainty

No, "we" do NOT! You hold those opinions which are neither universally shared nor substantively factual.

that 1)statistically, the more guns are around, the more people get killed (may just be correllation, not causation, but that is still significant as a factor) and

As has been cited earlier in this thread, the MOST statistically safe areas in this country are those with the MOST guns as well as the most dangerous areas, nationally and globally, being those with the strictest gun control, exactly the opposite of your assertion.

2) it is too easy for any old shmuck to get a gun.

...but I thought the (manufactured) outrage about this case was that the shooter was such an obvious risk, on a terror watch list and not just " any old schmuck??"

If you need a gun immediately (a 3 day background check is going to ruin it for you) then you're most likely up to no good anyway.

If you mean a rifle, maybe it's the first day of hunting season or a varmint problem suddenly presented itself to a farmer. A groundhog infestation can KILL a large part of a cattle herd (broken legs are fatal), not to mention what a pack of coyotes could do to livestock AND people and both of those things are perfectly suited to an AR-15's capabilities, so that's not "no good," and anyway, firearm purchases of ANY type are subject to a mandatory purchaser-funded Homeland Security background check. It may only take minutes or it may take days depending on the agency itself, but it cannot be circumvented and if you mean a pistol, there IS already ANOTHER separate mandatory background check by the FBI and waiting period (Brady Law), and again, stereotypes aside, most gun shop owners are NOT in business to sell to mass murderers and will often refuse to sell to individuals they believe pose a risk, which is their right. I'm NOT saying that a shop owner's gut check should be democracy's sole line of defense against gun sales to mass murderers, but buying a weapon is nowhere NEAR as easy as most folks who know nothing about guns believe.

And despite all the it's-not-the-AR15's-fault arguments I hear, not one person has countered the argument, as far as I am aware (made by many responsible gun owners/afficandos themselves) of what the hell you actually need one of those for?

They're sporting rifles, tools to be used, and I just provided you TWO examples where an AR-15 is the BEST tool for the job, at least that's what I USE mine for.

Just like assault weapons, I similarly see no reasonable justification for semi handguns either.

Doesn't matter; there ARE people and laws which agree that are otherwise.

because when it comes down to it, there's no reason other than having a cooler toy.

Mine are much less toys than my basses and the ones I have are VERY purpose suited to what I use them for, home defense and personal carry. That I have never had to shoot someone with them is immaterial; they DO their job.

[veebass]

Piss on my back and tell me it's raining.

Adapted from The Outlaw Josie Wales- one of my all time favourites.
Frequently, comes to mind when hearing politicians or media speaking.

[Psycho Bass Guy]

About the LAST band you'd expect to make a song about that phrase, Skid Row, has an excellent ditty which covers politicians, education, and the whole nine yards. They never got their due as a"serious" band which is a shame.

[uwe]

Shooting groundhogs and coyotes with AR-15s? Very huntsmannish, I must say. Shows a strong bond with nature as you would expect. Kind of like gatling-gunning down bison herds, they were a pest that needed to be eradicated too. All the grass they stole from the domestic cattle.

[Dave W]

Shooting groundhogs and coyotes with AR-15s? Very huntsmannish, I must say. Shows a strong bond with nature as you would expect. Kind of like gatling-gunning down bison herds, they were a pest that needed to be eradicated too. All the grass they stole from the domestic cattle.

(sigh)

from Modern Sporting Rifle Facts:

AR-15-style rifles are no more powerful than other hunting rifles of the same caliber and in most cases are chambered in calibers less powerful than common big-game hunting cartridges like the 30-06 Springfield and .300 Win. Mag.

Then there are rifles such as the Smith & Wesson M&P 15-22, which are no more powerful than any common small game rifle using .22LR cartridges. But ooh, it's really scary looking, so let's just ban it, right?