Shootings

[Isgrimnur]

make the guns less efficient

That is a fool's errand. They are firearms.

[Kraken]

make the guns less efficient

That is a fool's errand. They are firearms.

I, for one, am fine with muskets.

[Alefroth]

Not nearly long enough

I was thinking he'd succumbed to Covid.

[malchior]

make the guns less efficient

That is a fool's errand. They are firearms.

Not all firearms are as lethal as others which I believe is the point of that sentence. Though the reality is no restrictions are possible so in that sense it is a fools errand. The Supreme Court is apparently considering *EXPANDING* the 2nd Amendment out into the streets. Taking up the call that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is apparently maybe everyone with guns. The blood shall continue to flow. I think that's the point of the piece. We have to really start considering that it is very likely our society will continue to decline. Perhaps that is that is a natural outcome of a system that delivers fundamentally inhumane outcomes regularly across wide spectrums of the population.

[LawBeefaroni]

make the guns less efficient

That is a fool's errand. They are firearms.

I've given this a lot of thought and have come to the conclusion that something like an "assault weapon" ban wouldn't solve the problem completely but it would save lives. You can't nerf guns but you could limit the usage of certain ones.

More importantly, sadly, in terms likelihood getting one passed, I don't think it limits an individual's ability to self-defend. Yes, if faced with a rifle you want a rifle but it is very rare that both attacker and defender have rifles, excepting when law enforcement is involved. It is not practical to carry around a patrol rifle everywhere and no one does it for personal self defense. Home defense, yes but there are other options.

I'd be hesitant to give up the option but it's apparent that something needs to be done. And we need to do honest, scientific studies over time to prove or disprove the impact.

Anyone who knows the difference between what a combat rifle cartridge does and what a handgun cartridge does cannot deny the facts. Yeah, all guns can kill but some are far more effective with far less effort and training than others. That's what makes them great for anyone wanting to defend their home but unfortunately it also makes them all too effective for someone wanting to cause maximum random casualties.

[Blackhawk]

make the guns less efficient

That is a fool's errand. They are firearms.

I've given this a lot of thought and have come to the conclusion that something like an "assault weapon" ban wouldn't solve the problem completely but it would save lives. You can't nerf guns but you could limit the usage of certain ones.

As long as, this time, the people people writing the ban know enough about guns to make changes that actually make a difference instead of banning things that are mostly cosmetic, like bayonet mounts and flash hiders. The last assault weapons ban didn't so much make dangerous firearms illegal as it made scary looking firearms illegal. It was a cosplay ban.

[malchior]

make the guns less efficient

That is a fool's errand. They are firearms.

I've given this a lot of thought and have come to the conclusion that something like an "assault weapon" ban wouldn't solve the problem completely but it would save lives. You can't nerf guns but you could limit the usage of certain ones.

As long as, this time, the people people writing the ban know enough about guns to make changes that actually make a difference instead of banning things that are mostly cosmetic, like bayonet mounts and flash hiders. The last assault weapons ban didn't so much make dangerous firearms illegal as it made scary looking firearms illegal. It was a cosplay ban.

This is a popular outlook but it misses what they were trying to do. I read a fascinating article a few years ago that talks about the fallacy of this argument or more so how the NRA misinformed the public about it. Essentially the problem the legislators faced was *defining* what an assault weapon is. That is challenging if the goal is a legally enforceable ban. So they tried to define them by the features as they would define the procurement of the military-equivalent arms. And the NRA and their allies on the right seized on those *facile* elements and pushed out this story line. It essentially is the McDonald's lawsuit take of the gun control debate.

Edit: The trouble was the gun lobby/manufacturers walked right around them and modified their designs which was a predictable outcome. The root problem still remains that *defining* what would be banned is incredibly challenging even if it were attempted.

[Paingod]

I have read or seen, maybe a VICE.com article, about being able to purchase kits that let you create your own fully automatic "legal" AK-47 (or reasonable facsimile). Someone was even hosting the lessons and walking people through machining the parts they needed in order to make them work. I'd Google it, but don't want to end up on a watch list.

The comment about legislating and understanding what it is should be focused on the destructive potential of the weapon and not the appearance of it. I mean, someone's built a gun that looks like a flashlight but unfolds into something akin to a full-auto tactical SMG in a single motion. According to this, 64% of homicides by firearm were using handguns. Only 4% were with rifles. Chasing "assault rifles" only looks at 4% of the issue.

From the above BBC article, suicide in 2017 was the leading gun death statistic, weighing in at around 63%. Mass shootings, while horrifying, are a mental health issue more than a gun issue and clocked in at 0.5% of homicides. The other 99.5% of gun-related homicides should be the primary "gun" issue. Chasing mass shooters and trying to ban whatever they used as a kneejerk reaction is a losing game until the larger issues are solved.

Slashing and burning mental health spending needs to be reversed and a better culture around getting people out into the open to seek help needs to be established.

[Blackhawk]

Part of the problem is that the difference between military and civilian firearms is insignificant short of features that are already limited to the military (such as select fire.) In function, they're essentially identical. Still, it's completely missing the problem. It isn't rifles that are being used in most mass shootings. It's handguns (an. By more than a 2:1 ratio, it's handguns that are used. Here's what the last 'assault weapons ban' addressed toward handguns:

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
A manufactured weight of 50 ounces (1.41kg) or more when the pistol is unloaded
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Mass shootings aren't being done with barrel shrouds, suppressors, or .50 Desert Eagles. Mostly because those things don't help in that kind of situation. They don't make the gun more effective (most of these shooters wouldn't be even be able to handle a 50+ oz handgun - even Dirty Harry's revolver was lighter than that.) Magazines outside the pistol grip? TEC-9s inspired that bit, and they are one of the most unreliable handguns out there. It was only made so dangerous in the case that inspired this by the addition of a hellfire trigger, which is the handgun equivalent of a bump stock. It was the trigger that was the issue there, but it wasn't touched and you can still go out and buy them.

I get what they were trying to do, but all they (or a lot of similar legislation) did was prohibit things that aren't being used to begin with, or accessories that look 'cool' but make them harder to use and less reliable.

I don't know what the answer is, but it would have to come from 1) a strong knowledge of what makes firearms effective, 2) hard data about how the shootings are being done, and 3) a focus on effective solutions rather than reactionary measures that make for good press (IE - banning the accessory that was used in the latest shooting even if it is only used in .1% of all shootings.) A nice start wold be to focus on individual mechanical features rather than trying to define a class of firearms, and describing them by function rather than design to prevent workarounds.

Of course, none of that gets it passed.

[malchior]

Part of the problem is that the difference between military and civilian firearms is insignificant short of features that are already limited to the military (such as select fire.) In function, they're essentially identical. Still, it's completely missing the problem. It isn't rifles that are being used in most mass shootings. It's handguns (an. By more than a 2:1 ratio, it's handguns that are used. Here's what the last 'assault weapons ban' addressed toward handguns:

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
A manufactured weight of 50 ounces (1.41kg) or more when the pistol is unloaded
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Mass shootings aren't being done with barrel shrouds, suppressors, or .50 Desert Eagles. Mostly because those things don't help in that kind of situation. They don't make the gun more effective (most of these shooters wouldn't be even be able to handle a 50+ oz handgun - even Dirty Harry's revolver was lighter than that.) Magazines outside the pistol grip? TEC-9s inspired that bit, and they are one of the most unreliable handguns out there. It was only made so dangerous in the case that inspired this by the addition of a hellfire trigger, which is the handgun equivalent of a bump stock. It was the trigger that was the issue there, but it wasn't touched and you can still go out and buy them.

This is the challenge. They tried to take a snap shot of a moment and codify it into law, while the law was being 'hamburger-ed' up in the committee and amendment processes. You might think the list is silly but they were just trying to list anything that could be combined that had more 'military' application than 'civilian' application. That was the thinking. While I get that someone with knowledge might say this is obviously not a component in mass shootings or doesn't increase the effectiveness of the weapon but there is no perfect law. We might laugh at it but look at where we are now and its clear that we're far into militarized firearms widely dispersed throughout the population now. They failed to stem that tide.

I get what they were trying to do, but all they (or a lot of similar legislation) did was prohibit things that aren't being used to begin with, or accessories that look 'cool' but make them harder to use and less reliable.

This is a reasonable observation but when they did this what I recall is they worked off legislation going back decades. What was different was that the gun lobby and right had a different strategy to undermine the intent of the law. They went around the law. They attacked the law. And they attacked the intent of the law. And 30 years later that strategy has panned out because people are still talking about these things. They've become the 'conventional wisdom' about the futility of gun control. This is an example about how they undermine the debate by distorting it.

I don't know what the answer is, but it would have to come from 1) a strong knowledge of what makes firearms effective, 2) hard data about how the shootings are being done, and 3) a focus on effective solutions rather than reactionary measures that make for good press (IE - banning the accessory that was used in the latest shooting even if it is only used in .1% of all shootings.) A nice start wold be to focus on individual mechanical features rather than trying to define a class of firearms, and describing them by function rather than design to prevent workarounds.

This is a reasonable approach knowing what we know now about how the effort was 'attacked' and minimized.

One aside, the problem with hard data is that it doesn't really exist. US gun violence or even general crime data is a complete mess. The FBI is finally modernizing crime data collection this year but it'll take years to get everyone on board with it. The current system had a highly regarded paper on its flaws published in *2003* and here we are in 2021 with the launch of an update to UCARS.

Of course, none of that gets it passed.

Which is ultimately why this is mental masturbation. We can't get anyone to agree to small change items like background check loopholes. A modern 'assault weapon ban' is laughable. We aren't a nation that solves complex problems of any type much less the radioactive core of American insecurity.

[LawBeefaroni]

I have read or seen, maybe a VICE.com article, about being able to purchase kits that let you create your own fully automatic "legal" AK-47 (or reasonable facsimile). Someone was even hosting the lessons and walking people through machining the parts they needed in order to make them work. I'd Google it, but don't want to end up on a watch list.

If it's automatic, it's not legal without the appropriate NFA stamp.

The comment about legislating and understanding what it is should be focused on the destructive potential of the weapon and not the appearance of it. I mean, someone's built a gun that looks like a flashlight but unfolds into something akin to a full-auto tactical SMG in a single motion. According to this, 64% of homicides by firearm were using handguns. Only 4% were with rifles. Chasing "assault rifles" only looks at 4% of the issue.


From the above BBC article, suicide in 2017 was the leading gun death statistic, weighing in at around 63%. Mass shootings, while horrifying, are a mental health issue more than a gun issue and clocked in at 0.5% of homicides. The other 99.5% of gun-related homicides should be the primary "gun" issue. Chasing mass shooters and trying to ban whatever they used as a kneejerk reaction is a losing game until the larger issues are solved.

Slashing and burning mental health spending needs to be reversed and a better culture around getting people out into the open to seek help needs to be established.

No one cares about gang shootings. Or police shootings Everyone is terrified about mass shootings. I'd wager the rifle numbers would he much higher if you only included high profile mass shootings.

Does it make statistical sense to ban a certain type of fire arm? No. But staricsitcs don't make laws. Politicians do and it needs to make political sense or it won't happen.

If you reduce mass shootings via rifle then mass shootings by handgun start to be a political issue. Right now, trying to reduce handgun magazine capacity for someone in Idaho because gang bangers in Chicago shoot a few thousand people a year is an impossible sell. Restricting rifles because a dozen random people just like them were killed by a largely untrained non-careeer--criminal is a different story and easier sell.

[LawBeefaroni]

I don't know what the answer is, but it would have to come from 1) a strong knowledge of what makes firearms effective, 2) hard data about how the shootings are being done, and 3) a focus on effective solutions rather than reactionary measures that make for good press (IE - banning the accessory that was used in the latest shooting even if it is only used in .1% of all shootings.) A nice start wold be to focus on individual mechanical features rather than trying to define a class of firearms, and describing them by function rather than design to prevent workarounds.

Of course, none of that gets it passed.

Start with 5.56/.223/7.62×39/300 blackout rather than a device or feature. It's harder to work around cartridge size than firearm features.

You would run in to some issues with .308 (AR-10) and some of the other common hunting rounds. And of course gun and ammo manufacturers.

Not saying it'll ever happen but that's the direction that will have the desired outcome.

[Enough]

Having lost a dear friend to gun violence these are always really hard for me. Being a Coloradoan, it's so hard to fathom how many mass shootings of national note we've had. But mainly I came to the thread to share this clear summation of the policy situation, which I think might be a partial way to continue to work on flipping the narrative,

https://twitter.com/MaxBoot/status/1374420152326836227

https://twitter.com/MaxBoot/status/1374420152326836227

I mean imagine the rage of gun-owners if they had to go through the crap voting systems of many states. So much basic gun reform can be done without infringing rights like the anti-voter stuff does, there shouldn't be any issues requiring background checks, specific buying periods, licenses or requiring insurance to name a few. But treating the symptoms like these alone won't get us there, especially in the face of 3d printing and other rapidly democratizing tech. If you think guns are scary, just wait until an incel puts together a death swarm of drones one day and targets a populated scene, shits gonna get real. Hearts and minds of course is the key for any sustainable drop at this point, but I'm not optimistic.

[Blackhawk]

I'd wager the rifle numbers would he much higher if you only included high profile mass shootings.

It was roughly 2:1 handguns to rifles, and about 2:1 rifles to shotguns.

[Blackhawk]

Start with 5.56/.223/7.62×39/300 blackout rather than a device or feature. It's harder to work around cartridge size than firearm features.

A week later we start hearing about a minor variant ammo (5.62 or whatever) and cheap conversion kits.

My fallback on these issues is honestly the same as it has been for years: We're not going to successfully legislate anything. It won't happen. And if we forced it through somehow, it would either be overturned immediately, or four/eight years later. We have to change the culture first, and we would likely also have to fix the imbalanced electoral system to get the minority back into the minority.

[LordMortis]

From the above BBC article, suicide in 2017 was the leading gun death statistic, weighing in at around 63%.

The one that really struck me years ago was the amount of suicides that statistically didn't happen when Israel took away handguns from off duty soldiers.

First thing google spit at me

https://www.sprc.org/news/suicide-preve ... i-military

[malchior]

Yeah I think that link is one everyone knows. The lowest suicide rates in the US are inversely proportional to gun ownership. In the US, we don't rationally consider that you are far more likely to turn that gun on yourself or a family member than actually defend yourself. That is a broken culture aspect.

[naednek]

Removed by moderator

That's your take away?

[LawBeefaroni]

Start with 5.56/.223/7.62×39/300 blackout rather than a device or feature. It's harder to work around cartridge size than firearm features.

A week later we start hearing about a minor variant ammo (5.62 or whatever) and cheap conversion kits.

It's not that easy. We're in an historic ammo supply shortage and companies still arent tooling up for No way they'd build a factory for an unproven cartridge just to get around a ban. Especially when 5.62 or whatever could be banned next.

Anyone trying to make their own would have to neck down existing brass and cast their own bullets. Would either take a serious smith or great risk of blowing up gun and face. Not something done in mass quantities or by someone who spontaneously decides to go on a rampage.

[Daehawk]

Guns sales are way up.Starting to think the gun lobby pushes these shooting along. Well not really.

[Octavious]

Gun sales go up when democrats are going into office or a bunch of people get shot. The more shot the more sales increase. We're an awesome county.

[malchior]

What's really interesting is it appears to be a small population buying weapons versus a broad increase in gun ownership. We get the best picture based on surveys which tend to bounce up and down year to year. The range has been fairly consistent since the 70s (between 39% and 43%). So growth in gun ownership is generally growing with the rate of the population but gun sales are way up. It likely means there are individuals hoarding weapons.

[Isgrimnur]

Have to stock up for that upcoming boat accident.

[Daehawk]

It likely means there are individuals hoarding weapons.

They must have figured out a way to use more than one at a time.

[Jaymann]

It likely means there are individuals hoarding weapons.

They must have figured out a way to use more than one at a time.

Duct tape.

[Smoove_B]

Was there some type of memo circulated?

Just two days after a mass shooting left 10 people dead at a Colorado supermarket, Atlanta police arrested a 22-year-old man who walked into a Publix at Atlantic Station with five guns and body armor.

Police were called to the grocery store on Atlantic Drive just after 1:30 p.m. Wednesday and met with a manager who told them a man came in with a rifle and headed straight toward a bathroom, authorities said.

“A witness observed the male and alerted store management, who then notified police,” Atlanta police spokesman Officer Anthony Grant told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Officers at the scene spotted the man leaving the bathroom and quickly took him into custody. According to police, his weapons included two long guns and three pistols, all of which were concealed on his person.

[Holman]

It likely means there are individuals hoarding weapons.

They must have figured out a way to use more than one at a time.

Duct tape.

I think the dream is that they'll dole out weapons to their loyal followers after The Collapse (rather than, say, getting murdered by a larger and more organized gang for their stockpile).

[Daehawk]

It likely means there are individuals hoarding weapons.

They must have figured out a way to use more than one at a time.

Duct tape.

I think the dream is that they'll dole out weapons to their loyal followers after The Collapse (rather than, say, getting murdered by a larger and more organized gang for their stockpile).

First one they hand a gun too shoots them with it. "My stockpile now!" Then they hand someone a gun and they turn around and kill them "Mine!" on and on until only 1 guy is left with a stockpile...full circle.

[Enough]

Was there some type of memo circulated?

Just two days after a mass shooting left 10 people dead at a Colorado supermarket, Atlanta police arrested a 22-year-old man who walked into a Publix at Atlantic Station with five guns and body armor.

Police were called to the grocery store on Atlantic Drive just after 1:30 p.m. Wednesday and met with a manager who told them a man came in with a rifle and headed straight toward a bathroom, authorities said.

“A witness observed the male and alerted store management, who then notified police,” Atlanta police spokesman Officer Anthony Grant told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Officers at the scene spotted the man leaving the bathroom and quickly took him into custody. According to police, his weapons included two long guns and three pistols, all of which were concealed on his person.

Have to admit I am sort of happily shocked they would take action like that in GA. I wonder if he was just peacocking or was intending a mass shooting?

[Daehawk]

Officers at the scene spotted the man leaving the bathroom and quickly took him into custody. According to police, his weapons included two long guns and three pistols, all of which were concealed on his person.

1. How did he conceal two long guns?

2. If they were concealed how did anyone see them?

Makes me wonder here where anyone can carry now open or not. What if you see a person sprouting 15 guns on their person?..Just go about your business?

[Isgrimnur]

[malchior]

The derringer is a nice touch.

[LawBeefaroni]

It likely means there are individuals hoarding weapons.

They must have figured out a way to use more than one at a time.

Duct tape.

I think the dream is that they'll dole out weapons to their loyal followers after The Collapse (rather than, say, getting murdered by a larger and more organized gang for their stockpile).

A lot of the sales are panic purchases of guns they think will be outlawed. Either a backup for parts or that one they always wanted but never got around to buying. Accelerated purchasing.

[Holman]

Have to admit I am sort of happily shocked they would take action like that in GA. I wonder if he was just peacocking or was intending a mass shooting?

The problem is that a nonzero number of open-carriers "peacocking" are also the type who might go off if anyone reacts negatively to it.

I worry about anyone who gets their jollies by passively intimidating strangers in public.

[Remus West]

Have to admit I am sort of happily shocked they would take action like that in GA. I wonder if he was just peacocking or was intending a mass shooting?

The problem is that a nonzero number of open-carriers "peacocking" are also the type who might go off if anyone reacts negatively to it.

I worry about anyone who gets their jollies by passively intimidating strangers in public.

+1

[Smoove_B]

Just as a follow up to the guy they caught in the Atlanta Publix yesterday - here's what he was carrying:

https://twitter.com/MattWSB/status/1374884641472180225

[Skinypupy]

I wonder if he was just peacocking or was intending a mass shooting?

If I ever see someone carrying in a public place, I immediately leave. Doesn't matter when or where. Since we have no way to separate the "good guy with a gun" and the mass murderers, I figure I'm better safe than sorry.

I suspect I'm not alone in that.

[Daehawk]

Someone like that would get killed by another peacock.

[Paingod]

I wonder if he was just peacocking or was intending a mass shooting?

If I ever see someone carrying in a public place, I immediately leave. Doesn't matter when or where. Since we have no way to separate the "good guy with a gun" and the mass murderers, I figure I'm better safe than sorry.

I suspect I'm not alone in that.

I see it often enough in Maine that I don't even flinch. 99% of the people who open carry here are so fat they couldn't hide a gun under their belt. These aren't 20-somethings; they're 40-somethings. Last one I saw had two small children in tow with the holster strapped to his thigh - and a gut so big it stuck out 8" over his belt and drooped down over it.

If I saw someone wandering around, dressed like they were ready for war (semi-auto rifle with a handgun and tactical gear - and obviously not a cop), I'd probably go a different way and notify the police. Not in a panic, but as an informational.

There are people who open carry because it's their right, and then there are people who open carry because they WANT a confrontation about it with cops for their YouTube channel or something.

[Zarathud]

A fat man can pull the trigger as easily as a thin one. The bullet doesn’t care about the user’s weight or insecurity or instability.

We live in a civilized country, not the wild west. If you’re living for that remote possibility you have to use your gun, there’s something wrong.