FWIS3

Thousand Oaks, CA

A good friend of mine lives there. Luckily, he's too old to be attending bars these days.

Interestingly, the shooting was done with a handgun and not an AR-15.

Also, I'm very sad to be making this a sticky, but my non-emotional side wants to see how many shootings get listed over the next year.

Then do we have a definition or threshold for "mass" shootings so we will know when to post here?
Serious question.
Looks like there have been. 307 Mass shootings in the US so far this year.

Thumper wrote:Then do we have a definition or threshold for "mass" shootings so we will know when to post here?
Serious question.
Looks like there have been. 307 Mass shootings in the US so far this year.

I was thinking about that question when I posted this. And I don't have an answer. I tend to think of events like this one, not say murder/suicide or stuff that's personal, but I don't consider myself the Decider on what a mass shooting is. I guess that's the first topic of discussion.

I mean, a shooting like this is obviously a mass shooting. What happened in Pittsburgh was obviously a mass shooting.

Do we limit it to obvious ones? The floor is open.

Mass shootings are only a small portion of the overall gun problem. In 2016, 33,594 people in the US died by gun. By far the majority were deaths by suicide, at 22,938. 14,415 were homicides, and only 71 of those died in mass shootings. That's 0.5% Obviously this year we have already surpassed that. But it's still a very small percentage overall.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

Focusing on the circumstances of mass shootings as the basis for changing gun laws diminishes the significance of the other 95% who were murdered. Today, 12 were murdered in a mass shooting. Why don't we talk about the other 22 who are murdered today, and the 34 who were murdered yesterday, and the day before, and tomorrow? Because it's not as sensational. I'm not saying I'm innocent of that. I post, I donate after a mass shooting. But I don't do anything when that many or more or killed every day.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/key-gun-vi ... statistics This is where I got the 34 murders per day.
https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-america/ This corroberates with the site above that 96 people die by gun every day, but it doesn't specify murders.

This seems like it's going to be a depressing thread. I'm not sure I'll be able to participate much. But we'll see how it goes.

pumpkinpi wrote:Mass shootings are only a small portion of the overall gun problem. In 2016, 33,594 people in the US died by gun. By far the majority were deaths by suicide, at 22,938. 14,415 were homicides, and only 71 of those died in mass shootings. That's 0.5% Obviously this year we have already surpassed that. But it's still a very small percentage overall.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

Focusing on the circumstances of mass shootings as the basis for changing gun laws diminishes the significance of the other 95% who were murdered. Today, 12 were murdered in a mass shooting. Why don't we talk about the other 22 who are murdered today, and the 34 who were murdered yesterday, and the day before, and tomorrow? Because it's not as sensational. I'm not saying I'm innocent of that. I post, I donate after a mass shooting. But I don't do anything when that many or more or killed every day.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/key-gun-vi ... statistics This is where I got the 34 murders per day.
https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-america/ This corroberates with the site above that 96 people die by gun every day, but it doesn't specify murders.

We very definitely should do something about the 95% and I often (OK, sometimes) advocate repealing the 2nd Amendment as a great start. I know it's a long-shot, but that really is the core of our problem in this country.

The somewhat official standard for what defines a "mass shooting" is one in which 4 or more people are killed, not including the shooter. Some people believe it should be considered a mass shooting if at least four people are injured. Interesting enough there doesn't seem to be a broad consensus about the definition of a mass shooting.

geonuc wrote:We very definitely should do something about the 95% and I often (OK, sometimes) advocate repealing the 2nd Amendment as a great start. I know it's a long-shot, but that really is the core of our problem in this country.

Okay. And then what? We repeal the 2nd Amendment. How do we collect the more than 300 million guns that are out there? Is this a long term plan? Are we hoping in the next generation, because this has been repealed, things will get better?

These are sincere questions. I've had this debate too many times, and I tend to go right for, it won't work, but let's explore it as though it would work. I would like to hear more of your thoughts on this matter. Maybe it will make the thread less depressing for Thumper.

Then we pass tighter laws regulating guns and who can possess them. I don't know exactly how we'd go about that, but as long as the 2nd Amendment is in place, we can't even get started.

Repealing the 2nd Amendment is not like, say, repealing Obamacare where only an idiot (or a Republican but that's the same thing) would do it without putting something in place to replace Obamacare. We can repeal the 2nd Amendment tomorrow with absolutely no immediate effects. We would have time to craft effective laws. But we have to get rid on the amendment first or we're just pissing in the wind.

SciFi Chick wrote:

geonuc wrote:We very definitely should do something about the 95% and I often (OK, sometimes) advocate repealing the 2nd Amendment as a great start. I know it's a long-shot, but that really is the core of our problem in this country.

Okay. And then what? We repeal the 2nd Amendment. How do we collect the more than 300 million guns that are out there? Is this a long term plan? Are we hoping in the next generation, because this has been repealed, things will get better?

These are sincere questions. I've had this debate too many times, and I tend to go right for, it won't work, but let's explore it as though it would work. I would like to hear more of your thoughts on this matter. Maybe it will make the thread less depressing for Thumper.

I know that there are countries with similar views on gun ownership who overcame the challenge and decreased killings related to guns. Unfortunately, none of them had the second amendment hard wired into their respective constitutions or charters. Which is a formidable hurdle to overcome.

At the end of the day what research we have seems to show that if you can prevent the person who will use the gun from having the gun then the gun violence will not occur. Simple enough goal. Unfortunately, execution is difficult because there is no one federal standard per se. It's over 50 different states and territories with over 50 (moderately) different approaches to the problem.

You cannot pass a law that effectively bans gun ownership outright. Nor can you make a law that has the effect of outright banning.

What does seem to work is:
1. Reasonable background check enforcement. Most places have a background check requirement with a few loopholes such as gun shows. Although those are shrinking as individual states tighten up their laws.

2. Laws that restrict certain people from having access to firearms. Those "certain people" are individuals who have shown signs of being a high risk such as suicidal intent or homicidal intent. The Lauternberg Amendment is an example of homicidal potential. California has laws that allow concerned family members or law enforcement to get a warrant to seize a person's guns if they suspect they are a danger. They can only hold the guns for 21 days unless they can show the person is dangerous. The law that generated as much or more angst is the one that bans a person who has made a suicide attempt or been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital for suicidal or homicidal ideation from having access to guns or having them in their home for up to 5 years. They essentially have to petition the court to have the right to have access restored.

3. I am not sure what the research shows on the this but in previous conversations we have had on FWIS I don't think anyone objected to mandatory training for all gun owners.


All of that seems straight forward and simple enough. Unfortunately, the constitution clearly forbids the government from "infringing on those rights enumerated within the constitution" or words to that effect. And that includes the 2nd Amendment. So, it's very tricky getting judges to agree to laws that "infringe" on a person's right to have a gun no matter how impulsive or bat shite crazy they may be.

And in virtually every conversation I have ever had about this topic I can't seem to find 5 people who all agree on even what a reasonable solution looks like.

SciFiFisher wrote:And in virtually every conversation I have ever had about this topic I can't seem to find 5 people who all agree on even what a reasonable solution looks like.

Yeah. A bit like abortion or the death penalty. *sigh*

SciFi Chick wrote:

SciFiFisher wrote:And in virtually every conversation I have ever had about this topic I can't seem to find 5 people who all agree on even what a reasonable solution looks like.

Yeah. A bit like abortion or the death penalty. *sigh*

Yep.

From the site I linked to above, this lists all 307 "Mass Shootings" in 2018 along with deaths and injuries. There are many that have 0 deaths. I haven't poured over their site to look for their specific definitions.

At this juncture in our history repealing the 2nd amendment is impossible. Adjusting it, however, may not be (as Fisher said many states are doing that).

* I agree with the legal history and mental health clause completely.
*I also agree gun owners should be trained and have to take a test initially (perhaps renew their license every X years?). Those who argue with the former can give up their cars now.
* Japan also has a cool addition in that the owner must show proof of secure housing for said weapon which seems sounds esp. in households with kids.
* Assault weapons HAVE TO GO. No one can tell me that's what you need to hunt yada yada yada. Obviously, the exception here would be military
* Applying the laws we have also seems lax. There are judges out there who have a soft spot for guns and therefore give more lenient sentences than they should.
* If billy job bob gives his friend hank a gun as a loan and Hank has no licence for that firearm, whatever harm Hank does should also apply to billy jo bob to some degree as he knowingly did so (with all due apologies here to any good people you know with the names billy, jo, bob or hank).

Why does everyone harp on the mandatory training aspect? Just curious. Serious question.

Also, Loresinger, you and lots of people call certain guns "assault" weapons. Please stop. If you can't identify the weapon you want banned, it's going to be really difficult to convince anyone to ban it. Pick a gun and say why you want it banned. Lots of people hate the AR-15 for example. It's not an assault weapon. Stop calling it that or no one on the right will ever listen to you.

So Google is confused. The first entry is Wiki:

"Drawing from federal and state law definitions, the term assault weapon refers primarily to semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that are able to accept detachable magazines and possess one or more other features. Some jurisdictions define revolving cylinder shotguns as assault weapons."

That would include AR-15's and AK-47's, as well as semi auto hunting shotguns, and virtually all handguns.

The second entry From National Shooting Sports Federation says:

The AR in “AR-15” rifle stands for ArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. ... AR-15-style rifles are NOT “assault weapons” or “assault rifles.” An assault rifle is fully automatic — a machine gun. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934.

Virtually none of the general publie legally possesses or owns fully automatic machine guns. So an assault weapon can be defined as pretty much every gun out there, or basically none of the guns currently in circulation. And depending on who you talk to, an AR-15 is both.

For the life of me I can't fathom how we're having trouble dealing with this issue.

SciFi Chick wrote:Why does everyone harp on the mandatory training aspect? Just curious. Serious question.

Also, Loresinger, you and lots of people call certain guns "assault" weapons. Please stop. If you can't identify the weapon you want banned, it's going to be really difficult to convince anyone to ban it. Pick a gun and say why you want it banned. Lots of people hate the AR-15 for example. It's not an assault weapon. Stop calling it that or no one on the right will ever listen to you.

SFC, if you want to get serious answers, might I suggest you stop using language like "harp on" when someone brings up a point.

The AR-15 is very much an assault weapon as defined by modern social terms and as applicable to the subject matter. No, it isn't a weapon the military carries into battle but it's close enough in the context of the gun control debate. The AR-15 and all similar weapons are what people want banned. Here's an interesting read from a blogger and Army vet who I follow.

https://agingmillennialengineer.com/201 ... ke-guns-2/

geonuc wrote:

SciFi Chick wrote:Why does everyone harp on the mandatory training aspect? Just curious. Serious question.

Also, Loresinger, you and lots of people call certain guns "assault" weapons. Please stop. If you can't identify the weapon you want banned, it's going to be really difficult to convince anyone to ban it. Pick a gun and say why you want it banned. Lots of people hate the AR-15 for example. It's not an assault weapon. Stop calling it that or no one on the right will ever listen to you.

SFC, if you want to get serious answers, might I suggest you stop using language like "harp on" when someone brings up a point.

The AR-15 is very much an assault weapon as defined by modern social terms and as applicable to the subject matter. No, it isn't a weapon the military carries into battle but it's close enough in the context of the gun control debate. The AR-15 and all similar weapons are what people want banned. Here's an interesting read from a blogger and Army vet who I follow.

https://agingmillennialengineer.com/201 ... ke-guns-2/

You declaring that it's an assault weapon by modern social terms does not make it so. It's an assault weapon to people who want it banned. It's just a firearm to others.

Let's be clear. We've had this conversation many times on FWIS. Ban all the guns. I really don't care. I have no emotional investment in the second amendment. I don't own an AR-15 or want to.

I just don't believe it will solve the problem. We've had guns in this country forever. We haven't had mass shootings forever. Maybe I'm being simplistic, but to my mind, that means something else is wrong.

Again, ban all the guns you want to. I'll even vote for it. So you're preaching to the choir here. My point about harping on it being an assault weapon is that kind of language gets people who don't want to ban guns completely distracted from the subject at hand and it becomes all about is it or isn't it an assault weapon. I was trying to be helpful on how to get the other side to listen.

Thumper wrote:So Google is confused. The first entry is Wiki:

"Drawing from federal and state law definitions, the term assault weapon refers primarily to semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that are able to accept detachable magazines and possess one or more other features. Some jurisdictions define revolving cylinder shotguns as assault weapons."

That would include AR-15's and AK-47's, as well as semi auto hunting shotguns, and virtually all handguns.

The second entry From National Shooting Sports Federation says:

The AR in “AR-15” rifle stands for ArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. ... AR-15-style rifles are NOT “assault weapons” or “assault rifles.” An assault rifle is fully automatic — a machine gun. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934.

Virtually none of the general publie legally possesses or owns fully automatic machine guns. So an assault weapon can be defined as pretty much every gun out there, or basically none of the guns currently in circulation. And depending on who you talk to, an AR-15 is both.

For the life of me I can't fathom how we're having trouble dealing with this issue.

Exactly. Its clear as mud.

So it's not mass shootings per se, but I highly recommend anyone who never saw it look into The Gun Report. Basically after Sandy Hook happened some tireless reporters took time to look into all the gun related deaths in the United States and make a little report every weekday on the latest ones. From the end of the editorial written after one year:

There are an estimated 300 million guns in America, and that’s not going to change anytime soon. But to read The Gun Report is to be struck anew at the reality that most of the people who die from guns would still be alive if we just had fewer of them. The guys in the movie theater would have had a fistfight instead of a shooting. The momentary flush of anger would pass. The suicidal person might have taken a pause if taking one’s life were more difficult. And on, and on. The idea that guns, on balance, save lives — which is one of the most common sentiments expressed in the pro-gun comments posted to The Gun Report — is ludicrous.

Personally I'm just very tired about the argument that just because this is a huge national issue doesn't mean we can't do something about it. Like ok, at minimum, we have 300 million guns, but I'm pretty ok with not having 350 million in the future.

Also, to get back to the Thousand Oaks thing, I believe this video should be required watching. It's the mother of a victim who was in Las Vegas and whose son was killed this time. I feel like anyone who can watch that and dismiss the her and the issue of gun control as a problem we shouldn't be trying to find a solution for is an asshole.

Rommie wrote:So it's not mass shootings per se, but I highly recommend anyone who never saw it look into The Gun Report. Basically after Sandy Hook happened some tireless reporters took time to look into all the gun related deaths in the United States and make a little report every weekday on the latest ones. From the end of the editorial written after one year:

There are an estimated 300 million guns in America, and that’s not going to change anytime soon. But to read The Gun Report is to be struck anew at the reality that most of the people who die from guns would still be alive if we just had fewer of them. The guys in the movie theater would have had a fistfight instead of a shooting. The momentary flush of anger would pass. The suicidal person might have taken a pause if taking one’s life were more difficult. And on, and on. The idea that guns, on balance, save lives — which is one of the most common sentiments expressed in the pro-gun comments posted to The Gun Report — is ludicrous.

Personally I'm just very tired about the argument that just because this is a huge national issue doesn't mean we can't do something about it. Like ok, at minimum, we have 300 million guns, but I'm pretty ok with not having 350 million in the future.

Also, to get back to the Thousand Oaks thing, I believe this video should be required watching. It's the mother of a victim who was in Las Vegas and whose son was killed this time. I feel like anyone who can watch that and dismiss the her and the issue of gun control as a problem we shouldn't be trying to find a solution for is an asshole.

Just to share an anecdote because it really pisses me off....This week there was a shooting at a gas station in Minneapolis. On vehicle boxed another in, they started arguing, they started throwing rocks. Then the guy who was boxed in pulled out his gun and shot the other guy in the head. They didn't know each other.

And then...the shooter drove away and went to a nearby movie theater. The one where I saw Bohemian Rhapsody last weekend. And where I go to see pretty much all my movies. Now it's personal....how many guns are on the bodies of the people in there whenever I go in with my family? Why do they think they need to carry a gun? To protect themselves from rock throwers?

It's overall gun culture that needs to change. There is a lot to that, but why can't people agree that the first step is to start minimizing the number of guns out there!!!!!

I don't disagree with that sentiment. Crap, I just deleted my post on purpose. I was going to try to make some points but I'm at work. I fear I may have already said too much to strike up the interest of my net nanny. If I have time, I'll try to post a reply at home. Don't get online much at home.

pumpkinpi wrote:It's overall gun culture that needs to change. There is a lot to that, but why can't people agree that the first step is to start minimizing the number of guns out there!!!!!

Because the 2nd Amendment gives EVERYONE the inalienable right to own not just one, not just two, but as many guns as they WANT to. And because it is an inalienable right that cannot be abridged you have a very entrenched group of people who will not budge one little bit on that issue. It is the one right that seems to fire people up the most. Well, the freedom of speech thing does get people really energized too. But, guns seem to bring out the whack job in a lot of people who would otherwise be quite reasonable.

SciFi Chick wrote:Why does everyone harp on the mandatory training aspect? Just curious. Serious question.

Because, like all potentially dangerous things, a lot of the mishaps that occur are a result of human error. One of the ways to minimize human error is through education. i.e. Mandatory training. For example, as a teenager I had to take a mandatory hunting safety class to get my hunting license.

With mandatory training and testing we might be able to reduce the number of extremely stupid episodes, like the toddler who shot mommy because he found her loaded handgun in her purse that was obviously not on safe and placed within reach of the toddler. Of course, I suspect that sometimes stupid will win anyway.

I believe the idea of training could be somewhat compared to a car.
Do you let a person drive alone for their first time in a car or do you teach them safety
What about a manual - they differ and get tricky. You need to LEARN to use it correctly and safely
I would think that making sure a person knows how to handle a gun properly isn't "out there" and I would be open to the idea of proving proficiency rather than taking a class.

As for guns SFC I wasn't trying to convince anyone on the right - I was just talking about my views and how I feel. I did not have a "proper, politically correct gun designation" book on hand especially while eating pizza.

IMO There are guns that really don't belong in the hands of civilians due to their ability to kill many people very quickly (while simplistic I think that description fits an assault weapon). Fisher I believe you qualified the definition earlier?