Today's mass shooting in the US

ttaskmaster said:
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.


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

This is a good point. Even if they didnt get killed, many people have their lives totally destroyed by gunshot wounds/injuries.
 
Interestingly I think 50% of murderers and their victims are drunk and 30% of violent crime involves alcohol. If we're going down the potential for violence route I propose we ban alcohol as well as firearms. Just in case...we all know that won't happen but would save even more lives, and is a totally unnecessary legalised drug. Would also save on a lot of accidents too. I'm sure there are all sorts of things we can also ban to ensure 100% safety. We could start with the all causes of death list.
 
Troezar said:
Interestingly I think 50% of murderers and their victims are drunk and 30% of violent crime involves alcohol. If we're going down the potential for violence route I propose we ban alcohol as well as firearms. Just in case...we all know that won't happen but would save even more lives, and is a totally unnecessary legalised drug. Would also save on a lot of accidents too. I'm sure there are all sorts of things we can also ban to ensure 100% safety. We could start with the all causes of death list.
Click to expand...

Or how about we treat guns like alcohol and make a minimum age of 21 and also ban you from walking around with guns and also allow states to ban it at state level. Alcohol in the US is far more regulated than guns are that's part of the issue
 
Nashville shooting suspect Audrey Hale had purchased seven firearms legally from five different stores prior to yesterday's tragedy, says Nashville police chief John Drake.

Police have spoken to Hale's family, Drake says, who told authorities Hale had been in treatment for an "emotional disorder".

"Her parents felt she should not own weapons," Drake says. "She had been hiding several weapons within the house."

Hale was not known to police ahead of the attack.


"We do not have a motive at this time," says Nashville police chief John Drake just now.

Drake says again that no particular individuals were targeted by Hale upon entering the school.
Click to expand...
 
adidan said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, it really is the be all and end all for a lot of American gun owners. You will have a civil war before you take people's guns away from them. That isn't hyperbole and you can't reason with them and tell them differently.
 
I am not up to speed with this latest shooting, and am curious to know what this he / she thing is about. What is the biological sex of this person? I see no reference to this with a cursory glance of the more mainstream media. Thanks.
 
Caracus2k said:
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...
Click to expand...

So zero lives will be saved by sensible ban on AR15 style weapons.


Longbow said:
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.
Click to expand...

Did homicides with those weapons that were banned rise over the whole 10 year period?
Angilion said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

It has a defined meaning in that legislation and that is all that matters as its laws that govern who gets what type of weapons.

Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, the definition of "semi-automatic assault weapon" ("SAW") (commonly shortened to "assault weapon") included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features:[19]

A semi-automatic Yugoslavian M70AB2 rifle.
An Intratec TEC-DC9 with 32-round magazine; a semi-automatic pistol formerly classified as an assault weapon under federal law.
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and has two or more of the following:
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.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
  • Folding or telescoping stock
  • Pistol grip
  • A fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds
  • Detachable magazine.
The law also categorically banned the following makes and models of semi-automatic firearms and any copies or duplicates of them, in any caliber:
Name of firearmPreban federal legal status
Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly TechnologiesAvtomat Kalashnikovs (AKs) (all models)Imports banned in 1989*
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and GalilImports banned in 1989*
BerettaAR-70 (SC-70)Imports banned in 1989*
Colt AR-15Legal
Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN-LAR, FNCImports banned in 1989*
SWD (MAC type) M-10, M-11, M11/9, M12Legal
Steyr AUGImports banned in 1989*
INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22Legal
Revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12Legal

Click to expand...

Studies of mass shootings[edit]​


Total deaths in US mass shootings, according to Mother Jones. A mass shooting is defined as four or more people shot and killed in one incident, excluding the perpetrator, at a public place, excluding gang-related killings.[36]

After the 2004 expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban, the firearms industry embraced the AR-15's political and cultural significance for marketing.[37] Almost every major gunmaker produces its own version, with ~16 million Americans owning at least one.[37]
A 2019 DiMaggio et al. study looked at mass shooting data for 1981 to 2017 and found that mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the 1994 to 2004 federal ban period, and that the ban was associated with a 0.1% reduction in total firearm homicide fatalities due to the reduction in mass-shootings' contribution to total homicides.[6]

A 2020 RAND Corporation review of five studies regarding the effects of state assault weapon bans concluded that evidence for an effect on mass shootings is inconclusive while limited evidence was found that high-capacity magazine bans may decrease mass shootings.[4]

A 2015 study by Mark Gius, professor of economics at Quinnipiac University, studied the law's impact on public mass shootings.[5] Gius defined this subset of mass shootings as those occurring in a relatively public place, targeted random victims, were not otherwise related to a crime (a robbery or act of terrorism), and that involved four or more victim fatalities. Gius found that fatalities and injuries due to mass shootings were statistically lower during the period the federal ban was active.[5] Gius concluded that although the study showed assault weapons bans are effective in reducing mass shooting fatalities, their effects on the overall murder rate are probably minimal at best. This is due to the fact that assault weapons are used much more frequently in mass shootings than they are in murders in general. Gius calculated that in 2012 there were 72 fatalities due to mass public shootings of which at least 30 were committed using a rifle. In the same year, there were 12765 murders, of which only 322 were committed using a rifle.[5]

A 2015 study found a small decrease in the rate of mass shootings followed by increases beginning after the ban was lifted.[38]
Click to expand...
 
Chris Wilson said:
I am not up to speed with this latest shooting, and am curious to know what this he / she thing is about. What is the biological sex of this person? I see no reference to this with a cursory glance of the more mainstream media. Thanks.
Click to expand...
i'm curious about this too. Anyone ?
 
thedoc46 said:
who identified as a boy ?
Click to expand...
Yes, there's a joke in there about testosterone somewhere :p
thedoc46 said:
strange that a biological female would be the mass shooter.. more like born boy, identifies as girl, but really still a boy, goes on a rampage.
Click to expand...
As to females going on shooting sprees, it is rare but it happens, same as female serial killers.
 
Last edited:
Colonel_Klinck said:
So zero lives will be saved by sensible ban on AR15 style weapons.
Click to expand...
Not very many in the grand scheme of things.

Given the shooter in the latest incident skipped their 1st choice school due to security do you think teachers/schools should have armed security or be allowed to conceal carry firearms?
 
thedoc46 said:
who identified as a boy ?
Click to expand...

No, who identified as a man. She was 28 years old.

thedoc46 said:
strange that a biological female would be the mass shooter.. more like born boy, identifies as girl, but really still a boy, goes on a rampage.
Click to expand...

It has been confirmed by her parents that she was a biological female. They named her Audrey Elizabeth Hale at birth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom