Mass Shootings & age of shooters

[PhiAlpha]

No, the Edmond post office shooting was before the ban took place. And if the weapons weren't available then yes they would use other means which are less lethal, which is the point. You can't have a Pulse Nightclub or Las Vegas style shooting and body count with a knife.

On the exact same day that the Newtown shooting happened, a crazed man went into an elementary school in China with an intent to kill as many kids as possible. However, he could only procure a knife. He injured 20+ kids but none died. Forcing sickos to use alternate, less effective means of mass murder saves lives.

Ok. So Edmond took place before it took effect. What type of weapons did he use?

What type of weapons did the Virginia tech shooter kill 33 and injure 20 more with?

Hell for that matter, what did Timothy Mcveigh and Terry Nichols use to kill 168 people? Did they do it with assault riffles?

Again, what happened since the late 1980s that’s significantly increased mass shoutings and other murder events?

[Canoe]

I’ve always wondered if a generation that grew up playing video games that are largely shooting people has had any impact on this.

No... That is a tired old trope.

[PoliSciGuy]

Ok. So Edmond took place before it took effect. What type of weapons did he use?

What type of weapons did the Virginia tech shooter kill 33 and injure 20 more with?

Guns?

[Bill Robertson]

Off the top of my head, Columbine and the Edmond post office shootings both happened well before that was repealed or allowed to expire or whatever happened to it. Also I’m not sure the percentage but think well over half of the mass shootings since then have been carried out with weapons that wouldn’t have been covered by it.

In the cases where the shooters weapon of choice would’ve been covered by the ban, do you think that wouldn’t have chosen to carry out the shootings if those weapons weren’t available? Or do you think they would’ve just chosen a similar gun or other means to carry out the attack?

Do you the availability of those weapons is what inspired or caused those shooters to attack people?

The ban only stopped new sales. It did nothing about the gargantuan number of existing guns, high capacity magazines, etc. That aren't going away. At least now for many, many years if they stopped manufacturing today. The thought that gun control will really work in the US is, and I quote, "asinine and not conducive to discussion". We have to, as a society, come up with ways to stop people from feeling the need to go kill masses amounts of innocent people.

[Roger S]

Most of those are international, not here in the US, and tied to international terrorism. I would be fascinated to see how a possible school shooter would use a car instead of a gun to kill their classmates. Maybe they can fit their parents' GMC Tahoe into the school hallways or something. This whole argument, like your line of "reasoning" so far, is all a red herring.

It's the guns.

Geeze man... You just said compared to other 1st World Countries above and then you say most of those are terrorist attacks in 1st World countries.... And about half of that list is US.

How would they do it... Why don't you ask the parents of the 11 Moore track team members that were killed a few years ago? That was a drunk driver but someone that wanted to be malicious could do the very same thing.

As I said above... I'm not opposed to banning guns... It won't solve the problem.

[PoliSciGuy]

Geeze man... You just said compared to other 1st World Countries above and then you say most of those are terrorist attacks in 1st World countries.... And about half of that list is US.

How would they do it... Why don't you ask the parents of the 11 Moore track team members that were killed a few years ago? That was a drunk driver but someone that wanted to be malicious could do the very same thing.

As I said above... I'm not opposed to banning guns... It won't solve the problem.

What do you think the problem is?

[PhiAlpha]

Guns?

So it’s not just “assault rifles” you have an issue with…at least thats a much more logically sound argument as I don’t think a long rifle of any kind offered much of a tactical advantage over handguns outside of Vegas and Dallas due to the close range environment.

So that being established. Do you think banning and taking all guns away from everyone is:

A) Possible in practice in the US?
B) Possible politically in the US?

[Canoe]

Not really. Most other developed democracies have the same mental health issues we do, a similar social environment, play the same video games, listen to the same kind of music, have similar rates of divorce/broken families, etc. We are the only developed democracy on earth with the massively high level of mass shootings that we experience.

It's the guns.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/25/w...a-britain.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/w...rnational.html

The guns make it so the weak are on an even playing field with the strong. This is all that a gun does. It is effective and there is nothing anyone can say against these facts.

Other losers in developed countries are just less effective at using lethal force. If phaser beams were more effective at killing people then disgruntled young men would 3D print phaser beams and murder each other.

[Roger S]

What do you think the problem is?

I honestly wish I had that answer.... I could blame it on a lot of things but the one absolute fact I know is that humans have always killed each other. You can take away one method but they will find others. Maybe less lethal. Maybe more lethal... But I have absolutely no doubt that when someone puts their mind to murder they will attempt it.

But to me just saying "It's the guns." is too simplistic.... As I said above... guns are easier and more effective at the moment but guns are not the reason behind mass murders.

Edit: Jim Jones did it with Kool-Aid.

[PoliSciGuy]

I honestly wish I had that answer.... I could blame it on a lot of things but the one absolute fact I know is that humans have always killed each other. You can take away one method but they will find others. Maybe less lethal. Maybe more lethal... But I have absolutely no doubt that when someone puts their mind to murder they will attempt it.

But to me just saying "It's the guns." is too simplistic.... As I said above... guns are easier and more effective at the moment but guns are not the reason behind mass murders.

This is your problem then. This is a thread about mass shootings. You're spouting off about mass murder in general. You may want to find another thread to spout off in. Those are two different things. The solution to the former is gun control.

[Canoe]

Wow, who knew that the massively lower mass shooting rates in the UK and France and Australia and Japan was just due to cowardice and being losers.


What an incredibly ignorant argument. Thank you for showing your true self though, it takes a lot of bravery to publicly air one's stupidity.

Your argument style and your fear of seeing the truth codes as low class. Do better.

It is due to those countries not having access to the lead by tool the american population has.... There are clear differences between our population and their population. Grow up.

[PhiAlpha]

This is your problem then. This is a thread about mass shootings. You're spouting off about mass murder in general. You may want to find another thread to spout off in. Those are two different things. The solution to the former is gun control.

Dude quit with the attitude. What did he or anyone else here say to make you respond like that? Argue the point, not the poster or this thread will get locked like all the others have.

And a mass shooting is a mass murder with guns…the premise that if someone wanted to kill a bunch of people and would find a way to carry that out even if the person didn’t have a gun is relevant to this discussion.

[Roger S]

This is your problem then. This is a thread about mass shootings. You're spouting off about mass murder in general. You may want to find another thread to spout off in. Those are two different things. The solution to the former is gun control.

True but murder is murder... You take away one option and another will be used... You really didn't solve the overall problem. You just removed a tool.

[PoliSciGuy]

Dude quit with the attitude. What did he or anyone else here say to make you respond like that? Argue the point, not the poster or this thread will get locked like all the others have.

And a mass shooting is a mass murder with guns…the premise that if someone wanted to kill a bunch of people and would find a way to carry that out even if the person didn’t have a gun is relevant to this discussion.

Yes and making it harder to kill people by removing tools of mass murder, like guns, is a well-proven way to lower the homicide rate.

[PoliSciGuy]

Your argument style and your fear of seeing the truth codes as low class. Do better.

It is due to those countries not having access to the lead by tool the american population has.... There are clear differences between our population and their population. Grow up.

Yes and their population has lower homicide and mass shooting rates than we do. Sounds like we're the losers here. Feel free to add proof of your position at any time by the way, otherwise you just seem wholly out of your depth.

[Canoe]

Yes and their population has lower homicide and mass shooting rates than we do. Sounds like we're the losers here. Feel free to add proof of your position at any time by the way, otherwise you just seem wholly out of your depth.

Continue to place your head in the sand and continue to get the same results. We can never progress with your same old tired ideas and your same old discussion methods. Enjoy your thread sir.

[PoliSciGuy]

Continue to place your head in the sand and continue to get the same results. We can never progress with your same old tired ideas and your same old discussion methods. Enjoy your thread sir.

I'm open to new ideas. Show me the data. What are you basing your argument on? Or are you going to continue with just spouting things without actually backing them up?

[PhiAlpha]

I'm open to new ideas. Show me the data. What are you basing your argument on? Or are you going to continue with just spouting things without actually backing them up?

As I asked earlier…what is the likelihood that what you’re proposing, the ban and confiscation of all firearms, is remotely possible from a political or practical stand point in the US?

[PhiAlpha]

Yes and making it harder to kill people by removing tools of mass murder, like guns, is a well-proven way to lower the homicide rate.

Why are you “spouting off” about mass murder in a mass shooting thread?

[MagzOK]

It's the guns.

It's the vehicles killing nearly 38K people a year in motor accidents.

[Dustin]

I agree. It's the guns. The blame also lies with the El Paso County officials in Colorado who refused to enforce the red flag laws on the books.

https://www.kktv.com/content/news/El...507063911.html

https://www.thetrace.org/2022/11/col...ent=edit-promo

But of course nothing will happen and kids in schools, church goers, bar hoppers, and grocery shoppers will continue to be senselessly slaughtered.

[PoliSciGuy]

Why are you “spouting off” about mass murder in a mass shooting thread?

Because I was responding to someone who brought it up in the first place. I'm glad you agree that conversation about mass murder in general really doesn't belong here, which is the point I was making earlier.

[PhiAlpha]

Because I was responding to someone who brought it up in the first place. I'm glad you agree that conversation about mass murder in general really doesn't belong here, which is the point I was making earlier.

LOL

And you still haven’t answered my question.

[Bill Robertson]

As I asked earlier…what is the likelihood that what you’re proposing, the ban and confiscation of all firearms, is remotely possible from a political or practical stand point in the US?

It's not. It's a pipe dream of anti-gun proponents.

[Bill Robertson]

Yes and making it harder to kill people by removing tools of mass murder, like guns, is a well-proven way to lower the homicide rate.

And as I've pointed out that simply isn't possible in the US in the foreseeable future. Our gun culture is completely different than anywhere else in the world. Much like many of our customs. Come up with something else that will work.