5 ms·

Not to start a flame war, but it's not like America just recently got guns. We didn't have a mass shooting problem until recently.

by brink 4y ago

dragontamer 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban > The ban applied only to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. It expired on September 13, 2004 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Total_Deaths_in_US_Mass_Shootings_1982-2021.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Total_De... All of these mass shootings are using long-guns, because they are more accurate than pistols. Furthermore, when a mass-shooter is using a long-gun, police (see Uvalde) are less willing to engage, because the police know they're outgunned. ------- If we cannot stop the mass shootings, at least we can mitigate their damage and improve the odds of local Policemen of having enough of an advantage against the perpetrator, right? No one needs a long-gun for self defense, its too awkward to carry around. The only people using semiautomatic or automatic long guns are mass shooters. Hunters use simpler reload mechanisms and are fine with it (its no longer a sport if its a 30-ammo magazine in that gun). Who else needs a highly accurate long gun with high-reload capacity (over 5 shots per reload) ??
- teakettle42 4y ago
  It was enacted in 1994. There wasn’t a mass shooting epidemic before 1994, either. Also, the police are not outgunned (see Boulder). The police response in Uvalde was an incredible leadership failure and nothing else. > No one needs a long-gun for self defense, its too awkward to carry around. (1) The second amendment is not restricted to defense. (2) For just one example, ranchers rely on long guns to defend their livestock from wildlife, dogs, etc. > The only people using semiautomatic or automatic long guns are mass shooters. I’m a mass shooter? You are demonstrating a fantastic ignorance of the subject at hand and ought to recuse yourself from this debate until you’ve rectified that.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    > There wasn’t a mass shooting epidemic before 1994 Erm... the 1980s? You know, the time period that led to the 1994 ban on guns? Absolutely huge spike in gun violence and homicides. > You are demonstrating a fantastic ignorance and ought to recuse yourself from this debate until you’ve rectified that. There's no point in you having such a weapon. And yes, I'm willing to call you ignorant and backwards for arming yourself with such a powerful weapon. You ain't gonna be walking around town with a long gun. Your only hope for self defense in a typical "on the town" situation is a pistol / side arm. If a mass shooting occurs, you aren't going to run to your car and get the long gun. Why? Because you know just as well as I do that everyone else will shoot the first person they see with a long gun. (See Las Vegas shooting: everyone had guns, no one wanted to take it out because they didn't want to get confused as the mass shooter).
    - laverya 4y ago
      > Erm... the 1980s? You know, the time period that led to the 1994 ban on guns? Absolutely huge spike in gun violence and homicides. There is a major difference between "Gun violence and homicides" and "mass shootings", since mass shootings are ~1% of gun homicides, and gun homicides are ~1/3rd of gun violence. (2/3rds are suicide)
      - dragontamer 4y ago
        You have to account for the internet and public study of these events. Mass shooters are studying previous mass shootings, and using their techniques to become more-and-more deadly. Body armor, weapon usage, tactics, state of mind, training. Its very easy today to look up Columbine and study up to become a mass shooter today. That's just the facts. In contrast, we have no ability to study up on how to defend from mass shootings. Its asymmetric warfare. ---------- There is a pattern. The AR15 platform (and closely related clones) are favored today, for good reason. Uvalde, Stoneman Douglas High School, Las Vegas, Sutherland Springs, Pulse nightclub, San Bernardino, Sandy Hook.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
- 13of40 4y ago
  During the time that "ban" was in place, you could still walk into any gun shop and buy an AK-47 for a couple hundred dollars. The only difference that actually trickled down was a new one would have a thumbhole stock and no flash suppressor, neither of which would have any relevance to a mass shooting.
- delecti 4y ago
  It's very unclear that the assault weapon ban is responsible for the apparent reduction in mass shootings, because it didn't actually change much WRT firearm restriction. This [1] is a good "before/after" comparison of the regulation the ban actually enacted. They look basically the same to me, so it's not clear how the ban could have really been responsible for any change in outcomes. [1] https://assaultweapontruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/xm-15-comparison-1.jpg https://assaultweapontruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/xm... I'm pretty anti-gun, but we have to be realistic and honest about the data.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    My argument isn't about the "level" of gun violence. My argument is about the level of damage when gun violence occurs. It is clear to me that events, such as 2017 Las Vegas, or 2016 Orlando Nightclub, are more damaging due to the significant firepower that a lone gunman offers. If the gunman in the 2016 or 2017 shootings had worse weapons (ie: a pistol), they would not have gotten as far as they did in terms of number killed. These shootings were marked by an incredible use of ammo in a short timeframe. In the case of Las Vegas, they were taking pot-shots into the country music festival from a distance that outranged all the pistols that the country-music fans had. Furthermore, no one actually wanted to be confused with the gunman, so no one drew their weapon (killing the "good guy with a gun" argument for the billionth time).
    - delecti 4y ago
      Did you reply to the right comment? It doesn't seem like you're addressing anything I said. And I feel like the picture I linked is pretty strong evidence against any possible effects the assault weapon ban could have possibly had.
      - dragontamer 4y ago
        And I could say the same to you as well. Mass fun violence in the 80s were marked with higher powered guns, like the Uzi used in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald%27s_massacre https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald%27s_mass... More recently (now that the ban expired), we had Las Vegas and Orlando shootings, both using what would have been 'assault rifles' under that law. ------- The most famous mass shooting of the 90s was Columbine, which only used pistols and pump-action sawed off shotguns, likely limiting the damage. This is my ultimate point: if you think we can't stop the shootings, then we should do what we can to mitigate them. Forcing the perpetrators to use lower quality firearms seems to be practically effective.
thematrixturtle 4y ago
Oh yes you did, the list here stretches back into the 1920s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_... But because there's so many, people barely remember anything before Columbine.
- brink 4y ago
  I'm not sure it's a fair comparison when we now have more mass shooting events in half-a year than the entire 1920's and 1930's combined.
- hatware 4y ago
  1776-1920 is how many years?
mcluck 4y ago
Obviously it's not a single factor. The equation isn't `# of guns / X = # of mass shootings`. However, the equation is likely closer to `# of guns * complex social problems / X = # of mass shootings`
williamstein 4y ago
Gun production in the US dramatically increased 10 years ago. https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/6-charts-show-rise-guns-us-people-dying-rcna30537#20220525-child-gun-deaths https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/6-charts-show-rise-gun...
delecti 4y ago
It has absolutely gotten worse, but it's not a new problem. It's been a problem since the 80s, and has been steadily increasing since. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Total_Deaths_in_US_Mass_Shootings_1982-2021.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_S...
throw0101a 4y ago
> We didn't have a mass shooting problem until recently. Debatable: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_... One should also look at who tends to own guns: general rates can be deceiving. While there are more guns generally, fewer households own them, and certain individuals can have many of them: * https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/ https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-dem... Gun ownership appears to be becoming a bit of a minority activity. Most mass shootings appear to be done by white males.
pharrington 4y ago
The US has had a gun violence problem ever since we've had big gun manufacturers. The gun massacre terrorism epidemic is relatively recent.

Not to start a flame war, but it's not like America just recently got guns. We didn't have a mass shooting problem until recently.

by brink 4y ago

Not to start a flame war, but it's not like America just recently got guns. We didn't have a mass shooting problem until recently.

dragontamer 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban > The ban applied only to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. It expired on September 13, 2004 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Total_Deaths_in_US_Mass_Shootings_1982-2021.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Total_De... All of these mass shootings are using long-guns, because they are more accurate than pistols. Furthermore, when a mass-shooter is using a long-gun, police (see Uvalde) are less willing to engage, because the police know they're outgunned. ------- If we cannot stop the mass shootings, at least we can mitigate their damage and improve the odds of local Policemen of having enough of an advantage against the perpetrator, right? No one needs a long-gun for self defense, its too awkward to carry around. The only people using semiautomatic or automatic long guns are mass shooters. Hunters use simpler reload mechanisms and are fine with it (its no longer a sport if its a 30-ammo magazine in that gun). Who else needs a highly accurate long gun with high-reload capacity (over 5 shots per reload) ??

teakettle42 4y ago
It was enacted in 1994. There wasn’t a mass shooting epidemic before 1994, either. Also, the police are not outgunned (see Boulder). The police response in Uvalde was an incredible leadership failure and nothing else. > No one needs a long-gun for self defense, its too awkward to carry around. (1) The second amendment is not restricted to defense. (2) For just one example, ranchers rely on long guns to defend their livestock from wildlife, dogs, etc. > The only people using semiautomatic or automatic long guns are mass shooters. I’m a mass shooter? You are demonstrating a fantastic ignorance of the subject at hand and ought to recuse yourself from this debate until you’ve rectified that.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  > There wasn’t a mass shooting epidemic before 1994 Erm... the 1980s? You know, the time period that led to the 1994 ban on guns? Absolutely huge spike in gun violence and homicides. > You are demonstrating a fantastic ignorance and ought to recuse yourself from this debate until you’ve rectified that. There's no point in you having such a weapon. And yes, I'm willing to call you ignorant and backwards for arming yourself with such a powerful weapon. You ain't gonna be walking around town with a long gun. Your only hope for self defense in a typical "on the town" situation is a pistol / side arm. If a mass shooting occurs, you aren't going to run to your car and get the long gun. Why? Because you know just as well as I do that everyone else will shoot the first person they see with a long gun. (See Las Vegas shooting: everyone had guns, no one wanted to take it out because they didn't want to get confused as the mass shooter).
  - laverya 4y ago
    > Erm... the 1980s? You know, the time period that led to the 1994 ban on guns? Absolutely huge spike in gun violence and homicides. There is a major difference between "Gun violence and homicides" and "mass shootings", since mass shootings are ~1% of gun homicides, and gun homicides are ~1/3rd of gun violence. (2/3rds are suicide)
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      You have to account for the internet and public study of these events. Mass shooters are studying previous mass shootings, and using their techniques to become more-and-more deadly. Body armor, weapon usage, tactics, state of mind, training. Its very easy today to look up Columbine and study up to become a mass shooter today. That's just the facts. In contrast, we have no ability to study up on how to defend from mass shootings. Its asymmetric warfare. ---------- There is a pattern. The AR15 platform (and closely related clones) are favored today, for good reason. Uvalde, Stoneman Douglas High School, Las Vegas, Sutherland Springs, Pulse nightclub, San Bernardino, Sandy Hook.
- dragontamer 4y ago
13of40 4y ago
During the time that "ban" was in place, you could still walk into any gun shop and buy an AK-47 for a couple hundred dollars. The only difference that actually trickled down was a new one would have a thumbhole stock and no flash suppressor, neither of which would have any relevance to a mass shooting.
delecti 4y ago
It's very unclear that the assault weapon ban is responsible for the apparent reduction in mass shootings, because it didn't actually change much WRT firearm restriction. This [1] is a good "before/after" comparison of the regulation the ban actually enacted. They look basically the same to me, so it's not clear how the ban could have really been responsible for any change in outcomes. [1] https://assaultweapontruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/xm-15-comparison-1.jpg https://assaultweapontruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/xm... I'm pretty anti-gun, but we have to be realistic and honest about the data.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  My argument isn't about the "level" of gun violence. My argument is about the level of damage when gun violence occurs. It is clear to me that events, such as 2017 Las Vegas, or 2016 Orlando Nightclub, are more damaging due to the significant firepower that a lone gunman offers. If the gunman in the 2016 or 2017 shootings had worse weapons (ie: a pistol), they would not have gotten as far as they did in terms of number killed. These shootings were marked by an incredible use of ammo in a short timeframe. In the case of Las Vegas, they were taking pot-shots into the country music festival from a distance that outranged all the pistols that the country-music fans had. Furthermore, no one actually wanted to be confused with the gunman, so no one drew their weapon (killing the "good guy with a gun" argument for the billionth time).
  - delecti 4y ago
    Did you reply to the right comment? It doesn't seem like you're addressing anything I said. And I feel like the picture I linked is pretty strong evidence against any possible effects the assault weapon ban could have possibly had.
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      And I could say the same to you as well. Mass fun violence in the 80s were marked with higher powered guns, like the Uzi used in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald%27s_massacre https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald%27s_mass... More recently (now that the ban expired), we had Las Vegas and Orlando shootings, both using what would have been 'assault rifles' under that law. ------- The most famous mass shooting of the 90s was Columbine, which only used pistols and pump-action sawed off shotguns, likely limiting the damage. This is my ultimate point: if you think we can't stop the shootings, then we should do what we can to mitigate them. Forcing the perpetrators to use lower quality firearms seems to be practically effective.

thematrixturtle 4y ago

Oh yes you did, the list here stretches back into the 1920s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_... But because there's so many, people barely remember anything before Columbine.

brink 4y ago
I'm not sure it's a fair comparison when we now have more mass shooting events in half-a year than the entire 1920's and 1930's combined.
hatware 4y ago
1776-1920 is how many years?

mcluck 4y ago

Obviously it's not a single factor. The equation isn't `# of guns / X = # of mass shootings`. However, the equation is likely closer to `# of guns * complex social problems / X = # of mass shootings`

williamstein 4y ago

Gun production in the US dramatically increased 10 years ago. https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/6-charts-show-rise-guns-us-people-dying-rcna30537#20220525-child-gun-deaths https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/6-charts-show-rise-gun...

delecti 4y ago

It has absolutely gotten worse, but it's not a new problem. It's been a problem since the 80s, and has been steadily increasing since. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Total_Deaths_in_US_Mass_Shootings_1982-2021.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_S...

throw0101a 4y ago

> We didn't have a mass shooting problem until recently. Debatable: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_... One should also look at who tends to own guns: general rates can be deceiving. While there are more guns generally, fewer households own them, and certain individuals can have many of them: * https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/ https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/06/22/the-dem... Gun ownership appears to be becoming a bit of a minority activity. Most mass shootings appear to be done by white males.

pharrington 4y ago

The US has had a gun violence problem ever since we've had big gun manufacturers. The gun massacre terrorism epidemic is relatively recent.