Today's mass shooting in the US

[Caracus2k]

That's a really well though out and detailed response - and utterly irrelevant because mass shooters are almost all using assault rifle style weapons to carry out their killings rather than handguns.

I mean like you could have just checked first and not posted this....

Guns used in mass shootings in the U.S. 1982-2023

Published by Statista Research Department, Mar 28, 2023

Handguns are the most common weapon type used in mass shootings in the United States, with a total of 161 different handguns being used in 111 incidents between 1982 and March 2023. These figures are calculated from a total of 141 reported cases over this period, meaning handguns are involved in about 78 percent of mass shootings.

Guns used in mass shootings U.S. 2024 | Statista

Handguns are the most common weapons used in mass shootings in the United States. Other types of guns used in mass shootings include rifles and shotguns.

www.statista.com

Since 2013, the source defines a mass shooting as any single attack in a public place with three or more fatalities, in line with the definition by the FBI. Before 2013, a mass shooting was defined as any single attack in a public place with four or more fatalities.

 

[Moley]

I mean like you could have just checked first and not posted this....

Guns used in mass shootings U.S. 2024 | Statista

Handguns are the most common weapons used in mass shootings in the United States. Other types of guns used in mass shootings include rifles and shotguns.

www.statista.com

Doh! You are right. I retract my previous comment.

I have a login to Statista too - no excuse....

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

AR-15 style weapons and rifles in general account for a rather small amount of the overall deaths from shootings in the US. The evidence does not support the proposition that a ban in rifles would achieve any meaningful result.

What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.

More Americans died of gun-related injuries in 2021 than in any other year on record, according to the latest available statistics from the CDC.

www.pewresearch.org

In 2020, handguns were involved in 59% of the 13,620 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available, according to the FBI. Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – were involved in 3% of firearm murders. Shotguns were involved in 1%. The remainder of gun homicides and non-negligent manslaughters (36%) involved other kinds of firearms or those classified as “type not stated.”

Tell that to the Las Vegas shooting victims and their families. How would the shooter have done from that room with a bag full of hand guns? How many would still be alive today, 50?

There is a reason they choose guns like the AR15, they are easy to shoot, easier to actually hit what you are aiming at. The rounds are higher velocity and cause more damage than say a 9mm meaning you don't need to hit the same victim as many times.

They might not be used in shootings overall but when they are the devastation is far worse.

 

[mattx4]

They might not be used in shootings overall but when they are the devastation is far worse.

Agreed and the stats back this up

semi-automatic rifles were featured in four of the five deadliest mass shootings, being used in the Orlando nightclub massacre, Sandy Hook Elementary massacre and Texas First Baptist Church massacre.

 

[Caracus2k]

Tell that to the Las Vegas shooting victims and their families. How would the shooter have done from that room with a bag full of hand guns? How many would still be alive today, 50?

There is a reason they choose guns like the AR15, they are easy to shoot, easier to actually hit what you are aiming at. The rounds are higher velocity and cause more damage than say a 9mm meaning you don't need to hit the same victim as many times.

They might not be used in shootings overall but when they are the devastation is far worse.

Sorry I don't do hysterical appeals to emotion..


The facts are the facts and they say that rifles only account for a small % of the fatalities caused by firearms.

People with murder in mind will of course just change their tactics if one means of carrying out mayhem is thwarted.

And as I have previous said in this thread you can try and ban rifles in the US and all that will happen is the law abiding people, who account for very few fatalities in deed, will hand over their guns.

Criminals wont give a **** and will be emboldened knowing decent people will now be unarmed. And a significant minority of heavily armed citizens will do what their constitution logically leads them to believe is the correct course of action.

Namely tell the Federal Government to go do one and be ready to resist all attempts made by the government to disarm them with lethal force.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

The USA did that about 50 years ago. The only assault rifles in civilian hands in the USA are very old now, manufactured before the change in the law and now so expensive that they're unavailable to most people in the USA even when one is put on sale. Which was in 1973 if I recall correctly off the top of my head...no, I was a bit mistaken. It was 1986. But that's still 37 years ago. Mass shootings in the USA have become much more common since then. Maybe it did "help a lot" and the increase would have been even greater without the law "taking assault rifles out of civilian hands" in 1986.

Under the assault weapons ban of 1994, which expired in 2004, the AR15 and similar semi automatic rifles that had detachable magazines were banned, though weapons made and owned before 1994 were grandfathered in and remained legal. So under that legislation a semi automatic rifles like the AR15 was considered an assault rifle. Since the law expired in 2004 the sale of AR15 style rifles exploded.

 

[adidan]

It's in their Constitution, you may as well tell a Muslim to burn the Quran before you'll take guns away from a lot of Americans. People on here just don't get it.

I mean it's in their Constitution but that's not the be all and end all.

It appears they added the 21st amendment to repeal the 18th amendment which was itself added to make illegal the production and transportation of intoxicating liquor.

So they're not written in stone and all the "it's in the Constitution!!!" shouting only applies to certain amendments it seems.

 

[Caracus2k]

Agreed and the stats back this up

No they don't.

Your perspective is just skewed because of what the media reports.

Pretty much most weekends in cities like Chicago there are shooting with multiple fatalities often including children. They are just so regular that the don't make much more than the local news

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Sorry I don't do hysterical appeals to emotion..


The facts are the facts and they say that rifles only account for a small % of the fatalities caused by firearms.

People with murder in mind will of course just change their tactics if one means of carrying out mayhem is thwarted.

And as I have previous said in this thread you can try and ban rifles in the US and all that will happen is the law abiding people, who account for very few fatalities in deed, will hand over their guns.

Criminals wont give a **** and will be emboldened knowing decent people will now be unarmed. And a significant minority of heavily armed citizens will do what their constitution logically leads them to believe is the correct course of action.

Namely tell the Federal Government to go do one and be ready to resist all attempts made by the government to disarm them with lethal force.

How is that hysterical? Stop projecting.

Just because they aren't commonly used doesn't mean that when they are the death rate doesn't rise dramatically. You may not like it but if the shooter in Las Vegas had used hand guns the death rate would have been a tiny fraction of what it was. If you put weapons of war in the hands of civilians and civilians with mental health problems you can expect large death tolls.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

It's in their Constitution, you may as well tell a Muslim to burn the Quran before you'll take guns away from a lot of Americans. People on here just don't get it.

Can the Quran or the Bible be amended by a 2/3 vote of Muslims and Christians?

 

[Jono8]

People who think freely available guns don't make it far easier to kill people on mass (for those inclined to/decide to do it) are clearly idiots.

 

[Caracus2k]

People who think freely available guns don't make it far easier to kill people on mass (for those inclined to/decide to do it) are clearly idiots.

People that think that deaths will reduce in the short to medium term after any attempts to enforce a widespread ban of guns already in circulation share the same qualities...

 

[Ayahuasca]

People that think that deaths will reduce in the short to medium term after any attempts to enforce a widespread ban of guns already in circulation share the same qualities...

That’s not the point though. If they want it to change then it needs to start somewhere. Even if it takes a generation or two for widespread ownership to phase out, it’s worth it for those future generations.

 

[mattx4]

People that think that deaths will reduce in the short to medium term after any attempts to enforce a widespread ban of guns already in circulation share the same qualities...

Stricter controls doesn't mean a total gun ban

CA has stricter gun control than most other states and it's a really strange thing but it also has 37% less gun deaths. Maybe we could apply these rules at a federal level and see what happens

FACT SHEET: California’s Gun Safety Policies Save Lives, Provide Model for a Nation Seeking Solutions | Governor of California

SACRAMENTO – With the country still reeling from the mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas that left 19 children and two teachers dead last week, California’s nation-leading record on gun safety provides a…

www.gov.ca.gov

 

[kinetic747]

People that think that deaths will reduce in the short to medium term after any attempts to enforce a widespread ban of guns already in circulation share the same qualities...

Care to share with us what you think the solution is to stopping defenceless children being mown down whilst they're at school?

 

[Vulcan]

Under the assault weapons ban of 1994, which expired in 2004, the AR15 and similar semi automatic rifles that had detachable magazines were banned, though weapons made and owned before 1994 were grandfathered in and remained legal. So under that legislation a semi automatic rifles like the AR15 was considered an assault rifle. Since the law expired in 2004 the sale of AR15 style rifles exploded.

It was considered an 'assault weapon' which is a purely political term, because if you want to ban something you put assault in front on it. Assault rifles are different and well defined.

I should also point out the 1994 ban did nothing, firearm homicide rates actually went up during this period.

 

[Caracus2k]

That’s not the point though. If they want it to change then it needs to start somewhere. Even if it takes a generation or two for widespread ownership to phase out, it’s worth it for those future generations.

Whilst I would agree that any attempt to (even if only partially) disarm the US populace would take decades another couple of prerequisites would be a much reduced and more controlled federal goverment and a level of poltical consensus across the major parties on thr matter that just isn't there.

 

[Angilion]

Under the assault weapons ban of 1994, which expired in 2004, the AR15 and similar semi automatic rifles that had detachable magazines were banned, though weapons made and owned before 1994 were grandfathered in and remained legal. So under that legislation a semi automatic rifles like the AR15 was considered an assault rifle. Since the law expired in 2004 the sale of AR15 style rifles exploded.

You're confusing two different things:

Assault rifle: A term clearly defined in terms of functionality. Any assault rifle manufactured after 1986 is illegal for civilians to own in the USA. Any assault rifle manufactured before 1986 can be legally owned by civilians in the USA, but they are prohibitively expensive for almost everyone and tightly regulated. I think the assault rifle also has to have been in the USA before 1986, since the 1986 law also bans importing assault rifles.

Assault weapon: A political term with no defined meaning at all.

Completely different things.

So under that legislation a semi automatic rifles like the AR15 was considered an assault rifle

is wrong. That legislation was about assault weapons, not assault rifles. It doesn't use the term "assault rifle" because it doesn't refer to assault rifles. Which were already banned. The law didn't try to confuse two completely different things because that would have caused problems. A deliberate mislabelling in a law can get a law challenged.

 

[Jono8]

People that think that deaths will reduce in the short to medium term after any attempts to enforce a widespread ban of guns already in circulation share the same qualities...

I agree. However, the band aid has to be ripped off at some point.

It would be foolish to assume America's gun problem would be solved overnight by introducing strict gun control, but it would certainly help as time goes by.

 

[ttaskmaster]

To all those who are bandying fatality stats around: Can you please include numbers of those seriously injured, too?
The reason is that, while not killed, those with serious injuries often end up with very hefty medical bills - In some cases crowd funding and donations can cover it, but in many other cases people not only end up with life-changing injuries but also end up homeless because they can't afford the treatments. There was a good documentary that highlighted these often-forgotten elements in mass shootings, and gun crime generally. A few people were simply at home when something went down across the street, nothing to do with them at all and they weren't even in the firefight, but rounds came through their pre-fab walls, leaving them disabled and penniless.
If you're quantifying the consequences of mass shootings, I believe these should be included in the tally somehow.

There's all the mental trauma, PTSD and stuff that goes with surviving such things too, but those aren't so easy to statisticise.

Care to share with us what you think the solution is to stopping defenceless children being mown down whilst they're at school?

Here's one take on it: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-08-04/el-paso-dayton-gilroy-mass-shooters-data