The US of A Shooting Mega-Thread

[killramos]

I’ve heard calling things outliers only matter when it suits your narrative

[zechs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Click the sources. Real tldr: they are all gang shootings except for the very very rare exceptions

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

.

This is not possible, nor practical. About 1500 people per year die in the USA from mass shootings, which is 4 or more murders at once, INCLUDING GANG VIOLENCE.

This is a drop in the bucket of a country with almost 400mil people in it. It is a non-issue.

Said earlier, but nobody listens.

Ermagherd, there is a shooting every day! The country has 400 million people. Canada has murders every day, it doesn't mean its an epidemic of homicides.

[Sentry]

I mean, I'm not saying violence in the US is a non issue, I'm just saying equating your average street corner gang shootup to a tragedy like this is pretty disingenuous lol

[vengie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Click the sources. Real tldr: they are all gang shootings except for the very very rare exceptions

You're right, nothing to see here... No issues at all!

The definition is simple.
Mass shooting = four or more injuries or deaths in a single shooting.

These are all incidents meeting that criteria.

[Sentry]

So what is your solution to the "mass shooting problem"? Entertain us. Because the majority of """mass shootings""" by your definition, occur in blue cities and blue states with strict gun control compared to red cities and red states.

[vengie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So what is your solution to the "mass shooting problem"? Entertain us. Because the majority of """mass shootings""" by your definition, occur in blue cities and blue states with strict gun control compared to red cities and red states.

Read the thread, its been discussed and my perspective and beliefs have been shared.

Step 1: Agree that there is an issue.

[DonJuan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If you're talking about Canada, any business that sells a firearm already makes sure the buyer has a valid license through the online portal and private sales have to show a license before anything change hands. Anyone, private or business, validates the transfer of a restricted with the CFP. Anyone with a license undergoes DAILY continuous eligibility screening through CPIC and the CFO. Unless it is shown they either knew about the intent or sold the item unlawfully, saying that someone who sells an item that is later used in a crime should be charged as well is foolishness. You might as well start dragging dealerships into court with drunk drivers then.




On the fence how? The guy spent years obtaining guns that were smuggled into Canada and modifying a vehicle. He didn't wake up one morning, find a gangbanger on the corner and buy a Glock with a scratched off serial number. For years, the RCMP failed every single step of the way in Nova Scotia and every death that occurred was preventable if they had done their job with even a shadow of competence.

Referring entirely to the US here, not Canada at all (I should have made that clear). We have punishments in place for modifying mags etc. that seem to be working(?), and we don't have a school shooter problem.

The Nova Scotia guy planned the equipment out for sure, but to me didn't have a plan to cause mass casualties. He didn't go shoot up a mall to have mass casualties, or maybe do a "police road block" and start shooting drivers. Only reason why I think it wasn't as planned out as the Vegas one and seemed like it was more spur of the moment that something set him off.

Maybe it wasn't his purpose? Who knows.

[zechs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Read the thread, its been discussed and my perspective and beliefs have been shared.

Step 1: Agree that there is an issue.

You are equating gang violence with mass murders.

Some mass murders are gang violence, but not all gang violence is mas murder.

None of your suggestions fix gang violence in any way, shape, or form, but they do make it harder for law abiding citizens to access guns to protect themselves.

[spike98]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Very few of these people are going to spend time planning. They go off and look for convenience in accessing whatever their weapon of choice is.

Calling absolute bullshit on this one. They are not spur of the moment and almost always planned. This very recent one was as well. The guy was tagging people in his guns on social media the week before.

[vengie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You are equating gang violence with mass murders.

Some mass murders are gang violence, but not all gang violence is mas murder.

None of your suggestions fix gang violence in any way, shape, or form, but they do make it harder for law abiding citizens to access guns to protect themselves.

Root cause analysis 101

Identify a problem!

The fact we have people who can't see that there is a problem is in and of itself a problem.

Once we all agree there is a problem you can then begin to address societal factors leading to the end result.

I didn't think this needed to be said, but I am saying it anyways - I am a gun owner, I own many guns, I also actively shoot and enjoy it, I am not anti gun, I am anti idiots accessing guns.

[killramos]

I am generally anti idiots. I am very pro fewer idiots. So gang violence doesn’t bother me. Heck it sounds like a positive outcome to me.

It is really too bad gun violence bleeds into normal society sometimes.

[vengie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Calling absolute bullshit on this one. They are not spur of the moment and almost always planned. This very recent one was as well. The guy was tagging people in his guns on social media the week before.

I suppose there is a time horizon aspect here.

What do you define as spur of the moment?

My definition would be within 24-48 hours, so technically yes there would be SOME planning involved, but from my experience (anecdotal) people in an ill state of mind seek convenience to carry out their action, and tend to back down once resistance is faced.
This from my perspective is another reason why we have so few mass shootings in Canada - they can't access a firearm as easily.

[ZenOps]

If you bring more ammunition than the gun can handle, thats pretty much pre-planned. It would be easier to argue that you brought an RPG with a single round that killed 30 people as "spur of the moment" - than bringing an AR-15 with extra clips.

You don't bring extra clips to not use them. Did Rittenhouse bring extra clips? Would not be surprised if the shooter had Rittenhouse posters on the wall.

I'm very curious to know exactly how much he brought, and maybe left in the vehicle. 200 bullets? 2,000? If they had left him alone for another hour or two, would it have been a one man Tianmen Square?

[sexualbanana]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Capacity has zero effect on safety. Any tard can quickly change a magazine, having a messenger bag with 30 high cap magazines that are blocked to 5 rounds like here in Canada isn't going to make anyone safer. With 400 million guns already floating around in the USA, licensing is pretty pointless now there too.

Any tard can change a magazine but the time it takes to change a mag is time that bullets aren't being fired, which, in turn (hopefully), means time to safely get away. I think that is the reasoning for capacity limits.

[FraserB]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Any tard can change a magazine but the time it takes to change a mag is time that bullets aren't being fired, which, in turn (hopefully), means time to safely get away. I think that is the reasoning for capacity limits.

How long do people think it takes to change out a magazine? That's completely ignoring the fact that someone who is going to commit a crime with a gun probably isn't too worried about getting dinged with a prohibited device charge because their handgun has a 15 round mag instead of a 10 round.

Capacity limits are a prime example of a law designed by people who don't understand guns to appeal to voters who don't understand guns. You'd be hard pressed to find a single case when the capacity of a magazine had a measurable impact on whether a crime was committed with a firearm or not or impacted the severity of a crime. But I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that in a week or so, the Liberals will stand up and put a blanket mag limit in place for "safety" and to reduce "the ability of a criminal to cause harm" with already reduced capacity mags.

[max_boost]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

America is such an interesting place. They value freedom and personal choice, like buying a semi-automatic rifle and open-carry laws, but abortion is something they want a mulligan on.

Sure is. being in jail for mj in a state where it's completely legal ... lol

[sexualbanana]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

How long do people think it takes to change out a magazine? That's completely ignoring the fact that someone who is going to commit a crime with a gun probably isn't too worried about getting dinged with a prohibited device charge because their handgun has a 15 round mag instead of a 10 round.

Capacity limits are a prime example of a law designed by people who don't understand guns to appeal to voters who don't understand guns. You'd be hard pressed to find a single case when the capacity of a magazine had a measurable impact on whether a crime was committed with a firearm or not or impacted the severity of a crime. But I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that in a week or so, the Liberals will stand up and put a blanket mag limit in place for "safety" and to reduce "the ability of a criminal to cause harm" with already reduced capacity mags.

Doesn't take long, but it's more time than there would be if they had a regular capacity mag.

Let's say we have two shooters: Person A with a 5-round mag, Person B with 16.
Both fire at about .5 second per round. That's 2.5 seconds for Person A and 8 seconds of firing for Person B. (This, of course, ignores barrel temperature and all sorts of other variables like maybe taking cover)
It takes 1.5 seconds to drop a mag, grab a replacement, insert and chamber the new round.
If both shooters decide to absolutely HAM on the trigger, Person A fires less rounds with more breaks to reload than Person B who fires more rounds with less breaks to reload.

Your argument that I can't find instances of magazine capacity having an effect isn't wrong, but it's not exactly proven either because there are no (at the very least, a lot less) mass shooting incidents where someone used a reduced-capacity magazine. They're all done with standard or extended mags because, again, more rounds, less reloading = more damage in less time.

While the individual, law-abiding gun owner does get "hurt" by legislation restricting magazine capacity, it also restricts the supply available to bad actors. If all they had access to were low-capacity mags, then, and they are that hellbent on committing their act, then all they'll use is low-capacity mags.

[DonJuan]

There is also the saying that you charge the gun and run from the knife.

[Gman.45]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Hard disagree here. If there is a meaningful punishment for modifying a pinned magazine then people wont do it.

Similarly, if people who sell guns (business or private) to mass murderers or even criminals in general could be meaningfully charged or being complicit in the crimes committed, businesses may start doing their own background checks etc.

Just my 2c

Are you being serious? So your theory is that strong punishments will stop mass murderers from procuring high capacity mags and rifles? I mean, other than the already strong punishment for their upcoming murders, right. Deterrence from committing mass murder by having a "strong" punishment for drilling out a pop rivet in a magazine. For some reason I think that joe crazy isn't going to be all that put out about a mandatory 10 year jail sentence under the firearms act when it's compared to the umpteen life sentences for shooting people, and that's even if joe crazy plans to not flick off his own light switch.

As already stated, how do you punish retailers for potential/possible upcoming crimes? Do you not understand that a vehicle is a MUCH better gross motor skill weapon than any type of firearm?

Again, even with 5 round magazines, anyone can perform reloads in a few seconds (or A second with a bit of practice), so it just comes down to how many smaller magazines joe crazy acquires and brings with him.

[Gman.45]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Doesn't take long, but it's more time than there would be if they had a regular capacity mag.

Let's say we have two shooters: Person A with a 5-round mag, Person B with 16.
Both fire at about .5 second per round. That's 2.5 seconds for Person A and 8 seconds of firing for Person B. (This, of course, ignores barrel temperature and all sorts of other variables like maybe taking cover)
It takes 1.5 seconds to drop a mag, grab a replacement, insert and chamber the new round.
If both shooters decide to absolutely HAM on the trigger, Person A fires less rounds with more breaks to reload than Person B who fires more rounds with less breaks to reload.

Your argument that I can't find instances of magazine capacity having an effect isn't wrong, but it's not exactly proven either because there are no (at the very least, a lot less) mass shooting incidents where someone used a reduced-capacity magazine. They're all done with standard or extended mags because, again, more rounds, less reloading = more damage in less time.

While the individual, law-abiding gun owner does get "hurt" by legislation restricting magazine capacity, it also restricts the supply available to bad actors. If all they had access to were low-capacity mags, then, and they are that hellbent on committing their act, then all they'll use is low-capacity mags.

We're talking about a second or two of advantage with high cap magazines - technically you're not wrong, but the overall effect is VERY minimal in terms of advantage of mass shooters having access to high cap magazines, particularly because they aren't having fired returned on them until L/E eventually shows up - and even then 1/2 of the cases L/E wait for the tactical units to show up, as per the many criticisms on that particular subject. Your example holds water if you have shooters a and b in a competition based on time where fractions of seconds count, but in they typical mass shooter scenario, time isn't very critical to the shooter until L/E or some other armed party shows up to engage them.

I'd be happy to demonstrate for you the difference in person, and demonstrate how little disadvantage a small capacity magazine is.

So far as the root of the problem and how to even attempt to try and solve it, Kloubek said one thing that I very much agree with. Society indeed has something wrong with it IMO, and that's what we should be focusing on trying to fix. When I was in high school, my school had a rifle team FFS, I brought rifles to school in my trunk every single day in the 11th and 12th grade, and I was far from the only one. Teachers, parents, other kids, they all knew that we trained frequently after school (I was C carded on the junior trap team as well). Imagine that nowadays? What's changed? I'm not sure tbh, but something sure has, as things are MUCH different than just 30 years ago.