Can we talk about the mass shootings in America?

[Amulek]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is very hard to kill large numbers of people quickly with a knife.

Sure, but a well placed pressure cooker can kill and maim folks without too much difficulty.

Or you can just do like they do in Canada and run families over with your vehicle.

 

[Amulek]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If the police response in Uvalde can be taken as a general indicator of the will of the American people [...]

It isn't.

 

[Duncan]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

Sure, but a well placed pressure cooker can kill and maim folks without too much difficulty.

Or you can just do like they do in Canada and run families over with your vehicle.

 

the one time you mean

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

Like hunting? Or the self defense of your life or livelihood?

Yes

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

In 2020, the last year we have complete data for, guns were responsible for 44,222 deaths - more than half of which were suicides. (source)

And how often were guns used to hunt or protect life and property?  We can only say what percentage of deaths are caused by them as far as I know. I think at best we might be able to get a random survey or something of people asking them if they have a gun, have a list of the most typical usages not including homicide and ask which ones they participated in and how often and then estimate it for the number of gun owners.  Then you come up with for every 100 uses of a gun for noncriminal  behaviours (suicide is still a crime, right?), someone used a gun in a crime so many times. 
 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

, if you want to live in a state with tougher gun laws, like California or New York, you can do so. If

Not everyone can move just because they want to be where they feel safer. 

[marineland]

On 5/26/2022 at 7:25 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Those who have been in the military and in law enforcement know just the opposite:  We need disciplined and trained gun-owners, not lackadaisical libertarians who have no sense of responsibility.  Rights = responsibility.

Apart from military and police use, does the AR-15 have a reason to be owned by the
ordinary civilian instead of smaller handguns like the Glock or Ruger?

Edited June 3, 2022 by marineland

[Amulek]

15 minutes ago, Duncan said:

the one time you mean

Nope

 

[Amulek]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

And how often were guns used to hunt or protect life and property?  We can only say what percentage of deaths are caused by them as far as I know. I think at best we might be able to get a random survey or something of people asking them if they have a gun, have a list of the most typical usages not including homicide and ask which ones they participated in and how often and then estimate it for the number of gun owners.  Then you come up with for every 100 uses of a gun for noncriminal  behaviours (suicide is still a crime, right?), someone used a gun in a crime so many times.

I believe what you would find is that the overwhelming majority of guns are, unsurprisingly, used for noncriminal endeavors.

 

[Amulek]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not everyone can move just because they want to be where they feel safer. 

If I legitimately believed my life were in danger I would find a way to move.

 

[Duncan]

33 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Nope

 

Two times. It's your country and conscious, slaughter as many people as you want, i'm sure God doesn't care and i'm also quite certain the holy 2nd amendment will hold up in God's court

Edited June 3, 2022 by Duncan

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, marineland said:

Apart from military and police use, does the AR-15 have a reason to be owned by the
ordinary civilian instead of smaller handguns like the Glock or Ruger?

Chambered in what caliber (for each)?

You can get your AR-15 chambered in pretty much anything and use it for any purpose you want. That's one of the main reasons why it is such a popular choice.

Also, it's a platform that a lot of people have familiarity with, and when you need to shoot something not at the range you want to pick something up that you are very comfortable with.

I know a number of guys who use theirs for hunting feral hogs, which have become a serious menace here in Texas over the last several years.

 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Chambered in what caliber (for each)?

You can get your AR-15 chambered in pretty much anything and use it for any purpose you want. That's one of the main reasons why it is such a popular choice.

Also, it's a platform that a lot of people have familiarity with, and when you need to shoot something not at the range you want to pick something up that you are very comfortable with.

I know a number of guys who use theirs for hunting feral hogs, which have become a serious menace here in Texas over the last several years.

 

We have a friend who has one, but it's .22 caliber.  (The exact same as the semi-automatic rifle pictured below, for those less familiar)

 

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

Two times.

I'm not going to bother looking for further examples. My point remains: Those who are intent on killing people will be able to do so, and it doesn't take a lot of imagination to devise ways to do so even without easy access to guns.

 

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

It's your country and conscious, [...]

Quite so.

 

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

slaughter as many people as you want, [...]

I've been a gun owner most of my life. In fact, the only time as an adult that I didn't have access to guns was when I was living in student approved single housing back when I was in college.

Now, you may find this next part hard to believe but I swear it is true: in all of those years I have yet to slaughter even one person. Crazy, right?

 

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

i'm sure God doesn't care

I believe God cares about how we use our agency, and I also believe that He will hold us accountable for our own choices.

 

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

i'm also quite certain the holy 2nd amendment will hold up in God's court

I am fairly certain that God doesn't give a tinker's dam about most of man's laws.

 

[Amulek]

33 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We have a friend who has one, but it's .22 caliber. 

Yup. Great fun at the range. Not too loud and the ammo won't cost you an arm and a leg either, so you can actually afford to shoot it.

Perfectly adequate for small game and varmint hunting as well.

 

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, Amulek said:

It isn't.

 

The cases where the good person with the gun actually stopping something bad are the minority in my review of the mass shootings this year.

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Amulek said:

Sure, but a well placed pressure cooker can kill and maim folks without too much difficulty.

Or you can just do like they do in Canada and run families over with your vehicle.

 

Yes, it is possible to improvise things. There is a reason though that we don’t arm soldiers with pressure cookers and that we don’t have mass pressure cooker events.

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Amulek said:

No, it is a recent holding - not a recent interpretation.

 

I believe you are mistaken. The only prior precedent relevant in the Heller decision was United States v Miller (1939), which was a case that dealt only with the type of weapons protected by the Second Amendment and not with the scope of the right to own and use those weapons.

Also, Heller didn't actually overturn Miller, so what prior precedent are you referring to here?

 

Go back and read the Miller decision (it's really short) and see what it has to say about militias:

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." [emphasis added]

I suppose, now that I think about it, Heller did technically expand on Miller, but only in that it extended the right to bear arms to everyone and not merely men.

 

Federal and State governments can still regulate firearms and who can own them without impinging on the Second Amendment - they just can't regulate them out of existence. You know, sort of like how the government can still regulate speech or other Constitutionally protected rights.

This isn't something that was changed by Heller. In fact, the opinion expressly said, "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

 

Um...the founders pretty much all had guns. If they (along with most everyone else) didn't, we'd still be Brits.

 

I don't think memory is the problem. People just have legitimate differences of opinion on this subject.

Fortunately, our country affords people the freedom to vote with their feet. So, if you want to live in a state with tougher gun laws, like California or New York, you can do so. If you prefer a government that takes a more laissez faire approach, then you can move to Texas or New Hampshire. Do what you like - it's a free country after all.

 

I would use other cases.

United States vs Cruikshank would be the primary one where the Supreme Court said that individuals didn’t have a right to bear arms when the KKK deliberately disarmed black people.

The founders did all have firearms. We don’t have a militia anymore.

I am more concerned about the country choosing to not be free.

[The Nehor]

LOL

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The cases where the good person with the gun actually stopping something bad are the minority in my review of the mass shootings this year.

You were talking merely about the will to act before. Now you seem to be talking about absolute effectiveness.

Did your review uncover how times a "good person with the gun" was present for the mass shootings occurring this year? Because it seems rather unfair to complain about them not stopping something if they weren't actually there to begin with. Don't you agree?

As I noted earlier in this discussion, the FBI has released data for 2021 (download PDF, here). It reports 61 "active shooter" incidents in the last year (of which 12 were treated as "mass killing" incidents), and 4 of those active shooter incidents led to "shooters [being] killed by citizen," all apparently involving gun-wielding citizens (PDF pages 4, 11-12). Two more incidents involved citizens detaining a shooter without using guns themselves.

There isn't any information in the FBI report about how many times armed civilians were present (but failed to act effectively) at each of the mass killing events, but the aggregate pattern seems to be that civilian self-defense takes place in a meaningful percentage of active shooter incidents. 

 

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, it is possible to improvise things. There is a reason though that we don’t arm soldiers with pressure cookers and that we don’t have mass pressure cooker events.

Sure. Under many circumstances guns are going to be more effective at killing people than hurling IEDs.

Take guns away though, and people bent on killing others aren't just going to stop killing - they will simply use some other method instead (e.g., bombs, arson, vehicular assault, etc.).

 

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I would use other cases.

United States vs Cruikshank would be the primary one where the Supreme Court said that individuals didn’t have a right to bear arms when the KKK deliberately disarmed black people.

Sorry, but Cruikshank predated incorporation and didn't have any impact on the Heller decision.

 

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The founders did all have firearms. We don’t have a militia anymore.

And, despite everything I have read on the subject (which is quite a bit), I am not at all convinced that the Second Amendment protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service - though I understand why other people wish that wasn't the case.

 

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I am more concerned about the country choosing to not be free.

People hold differing views of what it means to be free. Perhaps someday your preferred position will be the one held by the super-majority and changes will be made.

I don't believe that will happen within my lifetime, but I don't begrudge people advocating for change either.

 

[Calm]

 

9 hours ago, Amulek said:

If I legitimately believed my life were in danger I would find a way to move.

 

This is not meant to be insulting because I am in the same situation as even when poor, always broke students our (my husband’s and my) extended families were there to back us up plus we always knew the Church was there in an emergency, but my guess is you have never had to live for an extended time at survival level where if you leave you lose the margin that keeps you and your family from being homeless without a job with no relatives or friends who can afford to help you because if they do, they will end up the same.  Homelessness is a dangerous life ‘choice’.  If you want to be safer, that is not the route to take.  It is not like people who are currently living in the most dangerous places in the US have chosen to stay because they don’t mind the danger.   Most of the people who can move do move from what I have seen, those who are left have stayed because they are there for someone else who can’t move or can’t move themselves.

Edited June 4, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Take guns away though, and people bent on killing others aren't just going to stop killing - they will simply use some other method instead (e.g., bombs, arson, vehicular assault, etc.).

But guns are more likely to be used in impulsive killings than something that requires planning…and yes, a baseball bat can be grabbed in anger and kill someone, but it takes more effort, more time and they have to be within arm’s reach. Guns are harder to defend against when unprepared than a baseball bat, harder to get out of reach, more likely to cause collateral damage…a stray bullet goes a long way before it no longer harms, a stray swing from a baseball bat or knife, not so far.

Killings won’t stop, but they will become less frequent.

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11120184/2016-gun-control-study-epidemiologic-reviews-deaths

It would appear that not only does reducing the presence of guns contribute to lowering gun homicides and suicides, they actually might be lowering the nongun homicides and suicides that you are positing if I understand you correctly would replace many of the gun deaths…so in your theory, these nongun deaths should be rising with gun restrictions…and yet it appears they are not.

Quote

So what do Santaella-Tenorio et al. conclude? First, and most importantly, that gun violence declined after countries pass a raft of gun laws at the same time: "The simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths," the study finds.

This finding doesn't highlight one specific law, like an assault weapon ban, in isolation. There were "so many different kinds of laws," Santaella-Tenorio told me, that it was hard to make good international comparisons on every specific kind of gun restriction.

Rather, countries passed big packages of gun laws, which overhauled the nation's firearm code fairly broadly, which all tended to share similar features. According to Santaella-Tenorio, they generally included:

• Banning powerful weapons, like automatic rifles.
• Implementing a background check system.
• Requiring people to get permits and licenses before buying a gun.

South Africa's comprehensive Firearm Control Act, passed in 2000, contained all these measures. One study found that firearm homicides in five major South African cities decreased by 13.6 percent per year for the next five years.

"Reductions in nonfirearm homicides were also observed," Santaella-Tenorio et al. note, "although not as pronounced as the ones observed for firearm homicides."

Quote

However, there is very good evidence — some of it from the same countries — that reducing access to guns reduces overall suicides. Indeed, Santaella-Tenorio himself believes that despite those three studies, limiting access to guns is very likely to reduce suicide rates overall.

"There's some other evidence that we didn't include in this review," he says, that finds attempting suicide is an impulsive decision that people regret (if they fail) and thus don't repeat. Firearms, because they're much more effective than taking pills or slashing your wrists, don't give people that option. Thus, reducing access to guns should (and empirically generally does) reduce the overall suicide rate

 

Edited June 4, 2022 by Calm

[Chum]

9 hours ago, Amulek said:

If I legitimately believed my life were in danger I would find a way to move.

Surprisingly, moving to a homeless camp doesn't bring the peace and security you might expect.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

As I noted earlier in this discussion, the FBI has released data for 2021 (download PDF, here). It reports 61 "active shooter" incidents in the last year (of which 12 were treated as "mass killing" incidents), and 4 of those active shooter incidents led to "shooters [being] killed by citizen," all apparently involving gun-wielding citizens (PDF pages 4, 11-12). Two more incidents involved citizens detaining a shooter without using guns themselves.

There isn't any information in the FBI report about how many times armed civilians were present (but failed to act effectively) at each of the mass killing events, but the aggregate pattern seems to be that civilian self-defense takes place in a meaningful percentage of active shooter incidents. 

I wouldn’t call that percentage particularly meangingful.

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

Sure. Under many circumstances guns are going to be more effective at killing people than hurling IEDs.

Take guns away though, and people bent on killing others aren't just going to stop killing - they will simply use some other method instead (e.g., bombs, arson, vehicular assault, etc.).

I disagree. This is presented as fact but when Britain, Canada, Germany, Australia, etc. clamped down with increased gun control measures after an increase in shooting deaths they did not see big jumps in knifings, bombings, or whatever. Many mass shooters are not particularly motivated. They aren’t spirited go-getters. Put a few obstacles in their path and they probably give up and play Minecraft or post more misogynous rants on the web or whatever. It is like the argument that only criminals will have guns if we make them illegal. Yeah, there will be a black market but these morons aren’t going to know how to use it. Attempts to use it would probably lead to them being ripped off or cheated. These are not criminal geniuses with ties to weapon dealers.

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

Sorry, but Cruikshank predated incorporation and didn't have any impact on the Heller decision.

It does show what I was saying though and that was that the 2nd Amendment wasn’t interpreted it as an individual right to own a firearm independent of the local militia until very recently.

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

And, despite everything I have read on the subject (which is quite a bit), I am not at all convinced that the Second Amendment protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service - though I understand why other people wish that wasn't the case.

They are words. They mean what we choose them to mean. We changed our mind in the last few decades.

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

People hold differing views of what it means to be free. Perhaps someday your preferred position will be the one held by the super-majority and changes will be made.

I don't believe that will happen within my lifetime, but I don't begrudge people advocating for change either.

Kingmen and freemen in the Book of Mormon both fought for freedom. It is the type of freedom that matters, not views on what is better.

[Amulek]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

It is not like people who are currently living in the most dangerous places in the US have chosen to stay because they don’t mind the danger.  

I understand that. But even people living in poverty make decisions based on what they think is in their best interest. And when push comes to shove, if they haven't moved (or aren't in the process of moving) then that means they value the benefits associated with their current circumstances more than the costs associated with staying where they are.

That being said, I wholeheartedly believe that if we (as a country) wanted to do something meaningful to lower the incidence of gun violence in our country, we should be doing more to help those who live in these communities. Increased welfare support, job creation programs, social services, etc. I'm not a big proponent of the welfare state in general, but these would all be programs I could get behind.