I just want to express my grief.

[GearedForwards]

I don't see where any reports claim that the NS shooter used an AR-15.

However, I would also posit that the type of firearm is immaterial, as he had it illegally, and it was one of many illegal things he had done.  There are also laws against having replica police vehicles and dressing up in a replica uniform as well as impersonating a police officer.

Why focus on one inanimate object when there were many inanimate objects involved?

As for Joey's situation, it is specific.  He is a close friend.  I don't have many, and I have to believe that he isn't the only Joey out there.

He is not a criminal.  He is being made to feel like one because of the things he enjoys and owns, has paid vast amounts of money for and was cleared by the very people that are then going to come and take these things away from him.  I don't see how someone could help but feel betrayed- perhaps if he had been listed as potentially dangerous, I could see a (strong) argument for removing his dangerous possessions, but taking away his guns because someone else did something wrong somewhere else doesn't make a lot of sense, at least to me.

Def

Guns used in the NS shootings:

.223-caliber Colt Law Enforcement Carbine rifle (an AR-15 platform)
Ruger Mini-14 rifle
.40-cal Glock 23
9mm Ruger P89
Stolen S&W 9mm LEO service weapon

You also didn't acknowledge at all that the sweeping claim you made was false.

And I'm sorry, this is ridiculous:

"Why focus on one inanimate object when there were many inanimate objects involved?"

Because only one inanimate object has the sole purpose to kill things. And this also seems to not be correct, at the time it appears that there was no law against owning any police memorabilia etc. in Canada, but impersonating an officer was. I'm not looking that up more, but I encourage you to as it seems like more legal claims you're making that may not be true.

As for the type of weapon being immaterial: I gave you a list of other times (presumably pre2019) that an AR15 was used criminally. You are the one that said they've never been used, so please pardon if I balk at you dismissing your own claim being disproved is 'immaterial.'

As for if, in this specific instance of the NS shootings, it is immaterial, no it isn't. The fact that he chose it meant that it was desirable a weapon, the legislation meant that it was more difficult for him to acquire the weapon. The failure wasn't the law, it was at the border. You could also make an argument that had the people he bullied into buying ammunition not purchased it, he wouldn't have had it. They were clearly in a very difficult position, but the law prevented him buying that ammunition himself.

Joey:

Feeling like a criminal and actually being criminalized are very different things. I'll put that down to a communication failure, but I hope that you can see how something hyperbolic like that seems.

Again, I can understand why that would feel bad, I understand why one might feel 'betrayed' but the law isn't catering to him as an individual, it's concerned with the safety of the masses. That's the trade off of living in a governed country, you accept that there are laws you need to abide by and that they aren't there to cater to your individual interests and whims.

A minority of people feeling bad their things are getting bought from them isn't a valid reason to affect the majority.

Just throwing this out there, but the logic of 'one/a few people did something why should we all be punished' is inherently flawed and will only lead to personal disappointment. By that standard you'd need the majority, or at least a significant portion, of the country committing these crimes before laws are enacted. That's a good way to end up with no people left to live by that new law.

[GearedForwards]

Actually the notion is not just hero fantasy and facts do exist to as much extent as you can prove a negative.

Here is an article where a politician started quoting specific incidents in response to another politician saying it doesn’t happen.
https://cnsnews.com/article/washington/melanie-arter/rep-cicilline-i-dont-think-there-single-incident-someone-using
Here is the article he got the data from
https://crimeresearch.org/2022/05/uber-driver-in-chicago-stops-mass-public-shooting/

See these incidence don’t make the news because they weren’t mass shootings.  Many people also discount these stories because there is no proof they would have become a mass shooting.

If going to legal gun ownership stopping violent crime in general, data exists that shows upwards of 500,000 incidents per year where someone used a gun to protect themselves from a violent crime. 
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a)” (source https://nap.nationalacademies.org/cart/download.cgi?record_id=18319)

What does stay consistent is people who want to do violence will find a way to do it even if breaking law.  When gun laws are passed in cities, they create more soft targets, because who aren’t violent or criminals will respect the laws.  The answer lies in trying to address the reasons people become violent and try to prevent that change as much as possible.  But those solutions are “hard” because they take dedicated people and a lot of time to create change.  They aren’t as easy as just takeaway the gun.

Let me try and clarify my position here:

More guns doesn't prevent anything, it's inherently a reaction to the event still beginning to happen/happening.

Legislation is about prevention, more guns is about stopping the threat before it fully develops, but that gun still needs to be drawn before anything happens.

And I appreciate that you're championing the cause of addressing the route of the issue: mental illness and domestic abuse etc. but this isn't an either or. I don't know anyone that has presented it as such. It's introduce more gun control whilst the cause is treated.

Of course this kind of legislation won't completely remove things in the meantime, but it can help reduce a person's potential to harm large quantities of people, and that is the whole point.

[Nix]

One thing I'm curious about in the states is this: what does the majority think vs the minority? Is it that most Americans aren't willing to lose those freedoms, or is it the structure of the legislative system that allows a minority of the population to obstruct the will of the majority? I'm posing this question because I'm aware that there are more 'red' states than 'blue' states, and this affects the number of seats in various fancy buildings, but that 'blue' states also tend to be more populous than 'red' ones. I don't want go over that line we're all toeing by presenting that, it's just something I thought of when you're mentioning freedoms and what the nation tolerates. Canada, for example, seems to not as a majority tolerate those risks.

Great questions. I don't know if there are solid answers. For a long while, I think "most Americans" supported the second amendment and broad interpretation, I think that is shifting. (But my perspective is not all that well informed.) And, yes, less populous, rural states often have different ideas and voting patterns than more populous urbanized states. This means it can be hard to make changes and the status quo tends to be maintained. This power differential is intentional and was a compromise of sorts when the nation was founded. No one state was willing to be overridden by other more populous states.

[GearedForwards]

Actually, whilst creating soft targets is being mentioned:

How many people defending themselves/stopping potential mass shootings are using AR-15s? Or a long gun with a capacity greater than 5, period?

My understanding was that people conceal carry pistols, and that one of the most recommended firearms for home defense was a shotgun, if this is true to any degree doesn't this heavily impact the claim that it would 'create more soft targets?'

[GearedForwards]

Great questions. I don't know if there are solid answers. For a long while, I think "most Americans" supported the second amendment and broad interpretation, I think that is shifting. (But my perspective is not all that well informed.) And, yes, less populous, rural states often have different ideas and voting patterns than more populous urbanized states. This means it can be hard to make changes and the status quo tends to be maintained. This power differential is intentional and was a compromise of sorts when the nation was founded. No one state was willing to be overridden by other more populous states.

From a UK PoV this is bizarre to me, and would lead to the will of the majority not actually being well represented.

I guess I feel like the US isn't a country, particularly considering the size of some states, it's more like a coalition of countries with an overarching government that has some power. Like the EU, I guess.

[Nix]

Actually, whilst creating soft targets is being mentioned:

How many people defending themselves/stopping potential mass shootings are using AR-15s? Or a long gun with a capacity greater than 5, period?

My understanding was that people conceal carry pistols, and that one of the most recommended firearms for home defense was a shotgun, if this is true to any degree doesn't this heavily impact the claim that it would 'create more soft targets?'

Lost you there.... are you saying that people armed with a pistol are "soft targets"?  My example of the citizen in West Virginia would be a quick counter.

A bit of irony here, given the OP's profession, I knew a psychiatrist who carried a concealed pistol for self-defense, but he kept and AR-15 in the trunk of his car in case he was ever caugh tup or could respond to a mass shooting. (And just to make it a bit worse for you: He lives in Texas.)

I don't know how often an AR get's used for self-defense. Again, that data, if available, is likely skewed to overlook successful incidents wherein the firearm wasn't even fired or was fired without causing a fatality.

[Nix]

From a UK PoV this is bizarre to me, and would lead to the will of the majority not actually being well represented.

I guess I feel like the US isn't a country, particularly considering the size of some states, it's more like a coalition of countries with an overarching government that has some power. Like the EU, I guess.

 

Yeah, even as we become more and more homogenized and every city is starting to look the same, it doesn't always feel like a country. Again by design. It was really founded as a coalition of states, like the EU. The US civil war saw a significant change in the power and authority of the federal government. That trend continues to the present, but there is still very much a "states rights" feel in many states.

Hmmm...Scotland has it's own lawmakers and has some self-rule authority, yes? I'm less familiar with Wales. Northern Ireland seems a differnt kettle of fish. And then there are the Jersey Islands..... How unified if the UK, really?

[GearedForwards]

Lost you there.... are you saying that people armed with a pistol are "soft targets"?  My example of the citizen in West Virginia would be a quick counter.

A bit of irony here, given the OP's profession, I knew a psychiatrist who carried a concealed pistol for self-defense, but he kept and AR-15 in the trunk of his car in case he was ever caugh tup or could respond to a mass shooting. (And just to make it a bit worse for you: He lives in Texas.)

I don't know how often an AR get's used for self-defense. Again, that data, if available, is likely skewed to overlook successful incidents wherein the firearm wasn't even fired or was fired without causing a fatality.

Sorry, to clarify, it seems like a common response, and one offered here, to gun restriction is that it creates more 'soft targets.' This is attached to the logic that criminals don't care about the law.

But, my issue with that is that something like an AR would more likely be used for home defense, which isn't largely helpful for most mass shooting scenarios. Here are some things that factor into that logic for me:

-People conceal carry pistols, conceal carrying a rifle would be difficult, inconvenient, and suspicious. So civilians at the scene, or nearby, are not likely to have access to an their long guns, even if they owned them.

-I think this is a state-based one, but I don't think you can just leave a loaded weapon in your vehicle, and if you do it needs to be secured? Then you still need to be near your vehicle, and have to quickly withdraw your weapon from its locker/safe.

Creating soft targets in regards to limiting long guns seems to be mostly applicable to homes and maybe private businesses. Whilst there will be some that keep more substantial weaponry in their vehicle (a YT channel I follow mentioned how he always travels with a plate carrier and rifle to protect his family), but this can't be the norm, and doesn't help those on the street away from their vehicles.

[GearedForwards]

Yeah, even as we become more and more homogenized and every city is starting to look the same, it doesn't always feel like a country. Again by design. It was really founded as a coalition of states, like the EU. The US civil war saw a significant change in the power and authority of the federal government. That trend continues to the present, but there is still very much a "states rights" feel in many states.

Hmmm...Scotland has it's own lawmakers and has some self-rule authority, yes? I'm less familiar with Wales. Northern Ireland seems a differnt kettle of fish. And then there are the Jersey Islands..... How unified if the UK, really?

The UK is a collection of countries, with each constituent country having power over certain 'devolved' matters, as a result of a movement called devolution. I'm a big fan of this, because I identify as Welsh, not British, and it limits stupid decisions UK-wide. For example, COVID restrictions were dropped much more quickly and aggressively in England, potentially as a political diversion, but the devolved leaders saw fit to uphold their restrictions longer to control the infection rate.

I wouldn't describe the UK as 'united' particularly, what many people don't seem to realise is that the UK is the result of England conquering it's neighbors before establishing the empire. I guess in that way you could relate it to the civil war in the way you described, but happened long enough ago that most people don't think of it that way.

[Nix]

-People conceal carry pistols, conceal carrying a rifle would be difficult, inconvenient, and suspicious. So civilians at the scene, or nearby, are not likely to have access to an their long guns, even if they owned them.

That's the norm, but as noted some people keep long-guns nearby in offices, home, and car.

-I think this is a state-based one, but I don't think you can just leave a loaded weapon in your vehicle, and if you do it needs to be secured? Then you still need to be near your vehicle, and have to quickly withdraw your weapon from its locker/safe.

Very much state dependent. In my state we leave loaded guns in the. If I have a pistol with me when I go into the Post Office or Bank (where firearms are not permitted) the pistol gets left in the car. Loaded. Usually locked up, if I had the forethought to bring a lock box.

Whilst there will be some that keep more substantial weaponry in their vehicle (a YT channel I follow mentioned how he always travels with a plate carrier and rifle to protect his family), but this can't be the norm, and doesn't help those on the street away from their vehicles.

It can become the norm, but I don't think it is. (And now I'm wondering if I should keep an AR in the boot...... (just kidding!  ))

[nate j]

The death toll from mass shootings went from 4.8 per year during the ban years to 23.8 per year afterwards, according to this study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30188421/

Article here: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/07/bill-clinton/did-mass-shooting-deaths-fall-under-1994-assault-w/

The DiMaggio study you are referencing has some issues…

The author himself:
“On the key policy question of whether the ban drove the decline, DiMaggio urges caution.

"It is pretty much impossible to prove cause and effect," he said.”

Another researcher (who highlights another point I’ve been trying to make, i.e. mass shootings are statistically very rare):
"Violence rates were quite volatile during that period generally for reasons that had nothing to do with gun regulation," Cook said. "That doesn’t mean that the ban was ineffective — only that we don’t know and probably cannot determine the answer given that the outcome of interest (mass shootings) is so rare."

A third researcher:
“Economist Rosanna Smart at RAND, a consulting nonprofit research group, agreed that mass shootings rose after the ban ended, but noted, "I don’t think (DiMaggio’s) methods are well-suited for determining the causal impact of the assault weapons ban."”

Moreover, even if we accept DiMaggio’s conclusions at face value, the 1994-2004 ban included magazine capacity limits among other restrictions, so attributing any decline solely to the magazine capacity limits would be a significant leap of faith.

[Aloha]

Looking at this and other mass shootings more the last few days.  Each time we hear its happened again many of us are upset by multiple things.  This shooting ( OP topic ) is another disturbing set of circumstances.  I recall the first mass shooting that took place in my city in 1984, at the time worst ever.  Lessons learned?  No.   

They haven't learned anything.  The person who committed the mass murder in a fast food restaurant in 1984 called a mental heath hot line for help.  Days went by before he acted, he was never called back.   

This current one is no different to me.  What upsets me most is looking back over the years we've passed laws, trained first responders, we've even become more knowledgeable on the potentially, but to what end?  Nothing.   

What has to be passed?  All the laws passed since 1984 have largely failed in light of what recent events have taken place since this topic started.  They have not slowed or deterred those who have been clear about their intentions.

Is this a failure to ban all ARs?  A failure to ban all magazines with 10 or more rounds?  Is the truth some want a total ban of all guns moving forward?   

I can't answer exactly why someone would want a AR since I am not a gun owner nor do I have plans to be.  I can attempt to answer as a knife nut enjoying carrying multiple knives.  Need is not a reason to want.  I can give a variety of reasons I like to carry multiple knives non knife people will never understand.  I'd imagine its the same with gun enthusiasts and AR folks.   

Killers, well I fully understand why they want such weapons.  Its not hard to understand.  TEC9s and UZIs were the guns of my days.  Meaning the criminals had them and sprayed the other bad guys with them.  Then they got AKs MP5s and other weapons.  Hell of a time in the 80s here.  Oh and nothing has changed.  We have stricter laws for those legally wanting guns.

Why spree or mass killers want such guns?  I don't think that needs an answer.  Does it?       

Since Vegas 2017 what law passed that has changed anything?  Reports are he planned for a year plus.  I guess better checks, not selling him more than X number of guns, not allowing any long guns to be sold, what else?  I might sound nihilist to say he was going to find a way and unless handguns were outlawed he would have used them instead and obviously not been able to shoot at the distance he did.   

Lets be clear about my feelings on guns.  All are assault weapons to me.  Whether used for hunting or target practice or whatever they are meant to take life.  I'm perfectly fine with that.  It doesn't scare me to say guns historically are tools for killing.  This is not saying anyone who owns a gun will do such a thing.  Ridiculous to think.  Neither does me carrying 3 knives mean I want to hurt anyone or I'm hoping to be attacked so try them out.       

What guns are folks wanting restricted?  I'd suggest looking up California gun laws and see if those are strong enough.   

Because Federal Law supersedes state laws but cannot violate our Constitution we'll have some inherent issues even when a law is proposed on a federal level.  Our states for the most part are sovereign and make their own laws.  This is why my state has strong laws and my neighbor doesn't.  The states cannot violate the Constitutional nor can the laws be stronger than Federal law. 

I am in no way a lawyer.  This is all stuff that can be looked into.  Federal laws were passed on a certain item in the Vegas shooting.  In 1967 laws were passed here in California regarding carrying of a loaded gun openly.  There is a reason for the suspicion on any new law or attempt to alter 2A that has roots to that 1967 ruling in California.  Look it up.  The NRA supported this, for those who think the NRA is always against laws pertaining to guns.       

Why are people so fervent in their defense of 2A?  ^^^  Because historically we've seen how this ( new laws ) plays out in other countries and in our own.  How it opens doors to "whats next". 

In first quarter of 2018 the murders in UK were higher than NYC and a loud cry for stronger knife laws was made.  I have looked up whats changed since and I am not convinced much has changed.  There were pretty strong laws prior to ( from what I read ) and depending on how the data is looked at not much has changed since.  I missed where the Gov has stepped in to get to the root.  Its been nearly 4 year now.  What I do know is stay out of West Midlands and Surrey from the stats if we are to believe them.       

I'm not sure why we have these mass killings.  What is for sure are the missed opportunities.  After the each one we have to stomach all the missed cues.  Infective help.  Parents who ignored blatant signs and being told how dark their kid felt.  Friends who were told how these individuals wanted to hurt people.  If we are going to scream about guns we need to scream louder about helping those that can helped.  We aren't helping them all.  We aren't stopping them all.  Strong laws, gun bans, mental illness help, in the end we will have those who find a way to kill as many as they can. 

One more mass killing is too many.  It'll happen again tho.  I've read fixing the root is a long term solution, so why not start now?  All the laws since my first awareness of a mass killing in 1984 ( the deadliest mass shooting at the time ) have done little if anything.  Forgive me if I'm not believing laws will do much.  Had we focused on mental health who knows.  Lets pass laws.   

If the root cause is a long term solution then we failed miserably.  Just because something was effective in another country in no way means it will work here in the US.  I'm sad to think we will focus on one aspect.   

When we are ready to really focus on why, only then can we begin to slow this down a bit.  We've had a long time to do just that.  In my city we've had our share of mass killings.  Nothing is targeted at the why, only the means by which.                       

I am not a gun owner nor do I plan to be. 

[nate j]

So, based on what was said a couple of posts above, the weapons are for protection from the armed forces of the government:?

I have actually heard this before, from US people in other forums, but it just seems strange, considering the love people have in the US for servicemen/women.

I’ll understand if this seems odd, but many Americans differentiate between their country (which they love), their servicemen & servicewomen (whom they love), and their government (which they don’t really trust).
Also, consider that those who take the oath of enlistment in the US armed forces swear, first and foremost, to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”.  Thus, there is an expectation that unconstitutional orders would not be followed.

- WHY do those places have stricter laws? Likely because they had high incidents of gun violence beforehand.

- I don't think this has been mentioned yet but it 100% needs to be: New York, Chicago and LA are the three most populous cities in the country. New York and Chicago are also some of the most population dense cities, something that is in common with Philadelphia. You (the royal you) can't point at cities as equals, there is vast disparity in population size, density and the socio economic dynamics of each city.

- The claims that xyz have the strictest gun laws in the country often don't mention how the teeth of those laws have been severely pulled in the last decade by judges overturning the laws. This is how Chicago's handgun ban ended for example.

- Chicago's laws in particular were neutered by having neighbors with less strict laws, 6 out of 10 traceable firearms used in gun violence in Chicago were traced to neighbor states such as Indianna. This is a large problem with having such a large country govern itself so haphardly, how many dry counties just see residents taking a drive to a wet one?

Of course these killers are looking for soft targets,they're cowards that are looking to do as much damage as possible, or severely mentally ill people looking to 'save' as many people as possible. You can't harden every soft target in the country, and I severely doubt that you could harden even most of them in a reliable fashion. Hardening is useful to some degree, but just not practical on the whole and does nothing to address the actual killer walking around with a weapon. So they go from a school to a supermarket, what's next, harden supermarkets? All public places?

Of course every city is somewhat unique; I was merely pointing out that there does not seem to be much of a correlation between how strict a city’s gun laws are and how many gun homicides per capita the city has.
With regard to why some cities have stricter gun laws, I believe one of the major factors is what state they are in.  Specifically, some states have state-level firearm preemption laws (which prevent cities, counties, or other localities from enacting any firearms restrictions that are more stringent than the state law), while other states do not.

It is true that some restrictions have been found unconstitutional.  But generally, the places that had some of the strictest laws in the country before still have some of the strictest laws in the country today (they just aren’t quite as strict as they once were).

With regard to hardening, I would argue that schools (if not hardened) are particularly (if not uniquely) vulnerable, for two reasons:  One, young children are extremely unlikely to be able to physically defend themselves against an adult, and a high proportion of the people in an elementary school are young children, with a relatively small number of adults to look after them.  Two, many states that are otherwise quite permissive about carrying firearms don’t allow them to be carried by adults in schools (except by sworn police officers).  Contrast this with a supermarket in the same state, where the percentage of people who are adults is much higher, and most of those adults are legally allowed to carry firearms, and the supermarket isn’t guaranteed to be nearly as soft a target as the school.

One thing I'm curious about in the states is this: what does the majority think vs the minority? Is it that most Americans aren't willing to lose those freedoms, or is it the structure of the legislative system that allows a minority of the population to obstruct the will of the majority? I'm posing this question because I'm aware that there are more 'red' states than 'blue' states, and this affects the number of seats in various fancy buildings, but that 'blue' states also tend to be more populous than 'red' ones. I don't want go over that line we're all toeing by presenting that, it's just something I thought of when you're mentioning freedoms and what the nation tolerates. Canada, for example, seems to not as a majority tolerate those risks.

It’s an interesting question.  I think there are a number of factors in play.


For one thing, it depends on exactly what is asked and how the question is asked.
Referring to https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

Would you like to see gun laws in this country made more strict, less strict or remain as they are? - Basically 48% remain, 36% more strict, 13% less strict (2022)

In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict or kept as they are now? - 52% more strict, 11% less strict, 35% kept as they are (2021)

Supermajorities believe the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns and oppose eliminating private ownership of handguns, for example, but favor some specific proposals such as expanding background checks.

I’d like to find some polling data on it, but empirically I believe there is a passion or enthusiasm gap that has an impact as well.  It’s been my observation that for many who oppose gun control, it’s one their top issues, and a candidate who would otherwise have their support can quickly lose it for coming out in favor of stricter gun control.  The reverse doesn’t seem to be true though; there are obviously some passionate supporters of gun control, but not nearly as high a proportion of gun control supporters seem to consider it one of their most important priorities.



It is certainly true that state representation in the House of Representatives is proportional to population (with the caveat that every state gets at least one representative no matter how small its population), while every state gets exactly two Senators.  This (along with internal Senate rules that require 60 out of 100 senators to agree to move forward with most legislation) does allow senators representing a minority of the population (or even a minority of senators, under current Senate rules) to effectively stop most legislation.  Some complain that this is anti-democratic.  All I can say about it is this:
1. Historically, it is worth understanding that the current situation was not an accident or oversight; it was a carefully considered compromise.
2. Practically, (the Senate could easily change its internal rules governing how it handles legislation, but) the chances of any state getting more or less than two senators at some point in the future is zero.  The reason is found in Article V of US Constitution, which states, in part “…no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

[Farmer X]

Is that a state or federal thing?

Federal.

IIRC grenades, rocket launchers are currently illegal and restricted in the US...

This may surprise you, but grenade launchers, rocket launchers, mortars, and such are legal. There are currently a WWII German anti-tank rocket launcher (may or may not work) and a live WWII mortar for sale on gunbroker.com! Those are, however, considered "destructive devices" under federal law. As such, they are pretty stringently regulated. For example, they dan only be transferred to dealers who hold a certain class of FFL (Federal Firearms License).

Those who take the oath of enlistment in the US armed forces swear, first and foremost, to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”.

I took that oath, and though I left active duty in 2006, I would still take up arms against enemies of the Constitution if the need arises. My interpretation of the Second Amendment is pretty strict (as with the Electoral College, the Founding Fathers were wise to implement it, taken in context of the times). And that puts me at risk of getting "too political," so I'll digress.

Since soft vs. hard targets was brought up, I recently did a little research into the matter and came up with the following:

https://www.businessinsider.com/deadliest-mass-shootings-in-us-history-2017-10

The linked article covers the 30 worst mass shootings in U.S. history. Let's examine them, shall we?

Of all 30, 20 occurred in what are by and large "gun-free zones" (institutions of learning, houses of worship, entertainment venues, and government facilities, which may not be an all-inclusive list). Taking into account only those that occurred this century, the numbers shift to 16 of 20. And if only the five worst are taken into account, guess what? All five occurred in "gun-free zones." Seems to me that A) these zones are in dire need of a revamp to their security protocols or B) we need to get rid of that concept.

And since an incident at an elementary school prompted the posting of this thread, how many of the worst 30 occurred at elementary, junior high, or high schools? Five.

[Syncop8r]

The DiMaggio study you are referencing has some issues…

Are there other studies similar to this that show a different trend?

“On the key policy question of whether the ban drove the decline, DiMaggio urges caution.

Yes so I was focussing on the difference after the ban rather than before it because is more statistically significant.

"It is pretty much impossible to prove cause and effect," he said.”

Another researcher (who highlights another point I’ve been trying to make, i.e. mass shootings are statistically very rare):
"Violence rates were quite volatile during that period generally for reasons that had nothing to do with gun regulation," Cook said. "That doesn’t mean that the ban was ineffective — only that we don’t know and probably cannot determine the answer given that the outcome of interest (mass shootings) is so rare."

True, and the same for many statistics: correlation does not equal causation
(Another favourite saying of mine is the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".)

Moreover, even if we accept DiMaggio’s conclusions at face value, the 1994-2004 ban included magazine capacity limits among other restrictions, so attributing any decline solely to the magazine capacity limits would be a significant leap of faith.

What were the other restrictions? (I'm not arguing magazine capacity was solely responsible.)

[Nix]

(Another favourite saying of mine is the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".)

   I'm stealing that!

[kkokkolis]

https://www.kauffman.org/currents/the-plural-of-anecdote-is-data/

 

[gregozedobe]

It has been mentioned a few times that if the "bad guys" can't/won't access guns then they will use other means (eg running over people with cars/trucks, setting off explosions etc).

While this is true, it seems to me that there are a lot more motivated "bad guys" in the US by comparison with other rich, developed countries (mine amongst them). 

So putting aside the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of any laws restricting access to guns and ammunition, what are the factors leading to so many US citizens deciding to go off the rails and kill as many innocent people as they can ? 

I don't think simply blaming "mental illness" as a catch all is a good enough explanation, there must be some underlying factor/s that exist to a much greater degree in the US than elsewhere.  There are plenty of disaffected people in other countries too, but very few transition to mass murder.

Is it more poverty, more broken homes, more personal violence, less empathy, greater desire for independence, difficulty obtaining healthcare (including mental health),more feeling of hopelessness, more exposure to racism or some other factors that explain the disparity ?

[GearedForwards]

 
In first quarter of 2018 the murders in UK were higher than NYC and a loud cry for stronger knife laws was made.  I have looked up whats changed since and I am not convinced much has changed.  There were pretty strong laws prior to ( from what I read ) and depending on how the data is looked at not much has changed since.  I missed where the Gov has stepped in to get to the root.  Its been nearly 4 year now.  What I do know is stay out of West Midlands and Surrey from the stats if we are to believe them.       

Just to address this point, I'm not really sure why this would be a statistic of note, although I'm sure plenty of people here called for knife regulation. The UK has a population roughly 8 times higher than NYC (67.22 mil vs 8.38 mil), it would be a little concerning for NYC if our overall crime stats didn't at least peak higher on occasion, if not outright higher.

[GearedForwards]

Of course every city is somewhat unique; I was merely pointing out that there does not seem to be much of a correlation between how strict a city’s gun laws are and how many gun homicides per capita the city has.
With regard to why some cities have stricter gun laws, I believe one of the major factors is what state they are in.  Specifically, some states have state-level firearm preemption laws (which prevent cities, counties, or other localities from enacting any firearms restrictions that are more stringent than the state law), while other states do not.

It is true that some restrictions have been found unconstitutional.  But generally, the places that had some of the strictest laws in the country before still have some of the strictest laws in the country today (they just aren’t quite as strict as they once were).

With regard to hardening, I would argue that schools (if not hardened) are particularly (if not uniquely) vulnerable, for two reasons:  One, young children are extremely unlikely to be able to physically defend themselves against an adult, and a high proportion of the people in an elementary school are young children, with a relatively small number of adults to look after them.  Two, many states that are otherwise quite permissive about carrying firearms don’t allow them to be carried by adults in schools (except by sworn police officers).  Contrast this with a supermarket in the same state, where the percentage of people who are adults is much higher, and most of those adults are legally allowed to carry firearms, and the supermarket isn’t guaranteed to be nearly as soft a target as the school.

It’s an interesting question.  I think there are a number of factors in play.


For one thing, it depends on exactly what is asked and how the question is asked.
Referring to https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

Would you like to see gun laws in this country made more strict, less strict or remain as they are? - Basically 48% remain, 36% more strict, 13% less strict (2022)

In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict or kept as they are now? - 52% more strict, 11% less strict, 35% kept as they are (2021)

Supermajorities believe the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns and oppose eliminating private ownership of handguns, for example, but favor some specific proposals such as expanding background checks.

I’d like to find some polling data on it, but empirically I believe there is a passion or enthusiasm gap that has an impact as well.  It’s been my observation that for many who oppose gun control, it’s one their top issues, and a candidate who would otherwise have their support can quickly lose it for coming out in favor of stricter gun control.  The reverse doesn’t seem to be true though; there are obviously some passionate supporters of gun control, but not nearly as high a proportion of gun control supporters seem to consider it one of their most important priorities.



It is certainly true that state representation in the House of Representatives is proportional to population (with the caveat that every state gets at least one representative no matter how small its population), while every state gets exactly two Senators.  This (along with internal Senate rules that require 60 out of 100 senators to agree to move forward with most legislation) does allow senators representing a minority of the population (or even a minority of senators, under current Senate rules) to effectively stop most legislation.  Some complain that this is anti-democratic.  All I can say about it is this:
1. Historically, it is worth understanding that the current situation was not an accident or oversight; it was a carefully considered compromise.
2. Practically, (the Senate could easily change its internal rules governing how it handles legislation, but) the chances of any state getting more or less than two senators at some point in the future is zero.  The reason is found in Article V of US Constitution, which states, in part “…no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

The whole multiquote thing is not in my wheelhouse on this forum, so I'll continue how I was before, that I think I stole from Nix 

City homicide rates: I don't think this is useful in this discussion, because overall homicide rates are a different kettle of fish and will involve all kinds of motives. The thread is intended to be about mass killings, where often the firearms used are legally purchased and thus restrictions have the potential to limit casualties. Again for those reading this, I'm not saying taking guns away fixes people, nor am I saying that this is all that should be done, or that all guns should be banned. I'm saying federal gun legislation can be damage control, unfortunately, I don't hold much hope for all states implementing policies to address the root cause, and I don't know how feasible federal legislation is on that front.

Hardening: I don't know how US schools work, are the entire premises not fenced with restricted access? That's how schools generally are here, and that's with a sense of keeping... certain kinds of adults off the premises. I raise this because I assume a school to be naturally more hardened as a place than a public supermarket, but I realise that assumption may be geo-biased.

Gun policy: The point of enthusiasm I think is a good one, the impression I get with light following of US politics is that a gun stance can be a driving stance for 'freedoms' whilst those wanting to push restrictions have more of a full plate. It seems one camp is more about status quo and removing restrictions, in most areas at least, than the other. So I'm understanding your break down of the legislative system, Congress (?) is dependent on population, but the Senate is more susceptible to how many states fall into which camp? And for a law to pass you need both houses and the president to all agree?

If I understand that correctly, I'm not surprised the status quo largely stays the same.

[GearedForwards]

Since soft vs. hard targets was brought up, I recently did a little research into the matter and came up with the following:

https://www.businessinsider.com/deadliest-mass-shootings-in-us-history-2017-10

The linked article covers the 30 worst mass shootings in U.S. history. Let's examine them, shall we?

Of all 30, 20 occurred in what are by and large "gun-free zones" (institutions of learning, houses of worship, entertainment venues, and government facilities, which may not be an all-inclusive list). Taking into account only those that occurred this century, the numbers shift to 16 of 20. And if only the five worst are taken into account, guess what? All five occurred in "gun-free zones." Seems to me that A) these zones are in dire need of a revamp to their security protocols or B) we need to get rid of that concept.

And since an incident at an elementary school prompted the posting of this thread, how many of the worst 30 occurred at elementary, junior high, or high schools? Five.

So, will address this a bit jumbled up:

Places of Worship - This was just a curiosity to me, these are generally gun free zones? Is this just typically nonChristian/Catholic places of worship? I assumed there was a strong correlation between gun ownership and the bible belt, but might be way off there.

The notion of ending 'gun free zones' - This in general, just sounds like a bad idea without further conceptualising/data. Allowing large amounts of intoxicated people to mix with firearms seems in direct conflict with firearm safety? And that includes if they aren't the ones originally carrying those weapons.

Revamping security - To some degree this is clearly necessary because these things happen, but that just seems liking moving goalposts are mass shooters will likely target whatever the softest target for their particular motive is. There was one racially motivated Walmart shooting, if the Walmart hardens then that reduces the number of soft targets in a concerning manner, there's no real hardening option for a children's playground, for example. There's also little to no guarantee this would actually help anything, police officers have been present when numerous mass shootings occurred, either becoming victims or otherwise being ineffectual.

Then there is the very, very real concern that hardening these places makes these incidents worse as the shooter will always have initiative. That can create a situation where the targeted population have a more difficult time escaping, and law enforcement have a much more difficult time ending the situation.

I will say that there is a little tone of blaming the areas that this happened, which is unfortunate. These things would have happened regardless, and they do happen in places that are certainly not gun free.

Your approach looks at it as just a case of soft targets, which it certainly can be, but there are many factors involved in school shootings:

- It's somewhat common for the shooter to go/have gone there, and have gripes with students or faculty there. It is also going to be a place that they have intimate knowledge and have an easier time planning/feel more 'comfortable' (if there is such a thing on this horrendous topic)

- Armed officers were present at multiple school shootings on that list and didn't end it or prevent it, a school that has it's own dedicated armed officer isn't exactly a 'soft' target in my estimation. And if that does qualify for a soft target, then that is a concerning matter on it's own and brings the natural question of 'how much is enough?'

[GearedForwards]

I've also finally seen the Las Vegas strip details since it has been mentioned in one way or another. That's horrifying and the clearest case where the sheer scope of violence done was directly related to his weapons access. Not just the distance, but the rate of fire he could sustain with multiple hundred round magazines.

I get it if in personal estimation a 30 round magazine is deemed 'enough' for self defense. I don't agree, but I can understand. But, what is the purpose of such a high-capacity magazine, particularly of a rifle calibre, in civilian hands?

Edit: it's also a case where hardening, in this case a security fence, did nothing but contain the poor souls involved in the path of fire.

[Nix]

I get it if in personal estimation a 30 round magazine is deemed 'enough' for self defense. I don't agree, but I can understand. But, what is the purpose of such a high-capacity magazine, particularly of a rifle calibre, in civilian hands?

As I've stated before, I prefer a 20-round magazine. And, with a 5.56mm carbine, I'd be perfectly happy with a 10 round magazine for "home defense", believing that I'm not at particularly significant risk.

Yet....as you have learned, I like to argue. So let me make an argument for the 30-round magazine in a point by point way:

-- the 5.56 NATO round, like the 7.62x39mm AKM round, is an "intermediate rifle" round. In layperson terms, it is a weak round useful for short to medium ranges. I would not hunt deer with a 5.56mm. Real world combat experience has demonstrated that a 5.56mm is not very effective in stopping a close-range assailant before said attacker can inflict a lethal injury upon you, the defender. For this reason, multiple shots are likely to be required to stop an assailant and prevent the defender from being injured. This is common practice, and the way I was trained. At household ranges, I would never shoot once. How many times?  Dunno.....3 minimum...4 to 6 times sounds reasonable and prudent. (With handguns, we sometimes see the police use twice as many to stop the threat cold.)

-- The home defense situation is likey to involve multiple invaders/attackers. Hard to say how many, but 3-5 is a good planning number. So, best to plan for 3-5 potential attackers.

-- It is unrealistic to think that the average, reasonably trained person will hit their target with every shot in a highly stressful situation. If you look at police shootings, they demonstrate a relatively low hit rate. A 75% hit rate is a generous figure. That means we'll need to fire 1.333 shots to get one useful hit.

So, here's our math: 5 attackers X 4 shots per attacker X 1.333 efficacy coefficient = 26.6 rounds required. If we round up....27. If all I have is a 30-round magazine, there is 1 in the chamber and 2 in the magazine when the dust is settled. Time for a "tactical reload".

That is the logic behind the home defender wanting a 30-round magazine. (Personally, I think the logic is flawed, but that is just me.) The 30-round magazine provides enough ammunition to handle a very serious situation and not require a magazine change (which, in combat conditions, may require some skill.).  If you think a 30-round magazine seems excessively large, why is it that police cruisers now carry AR-15 carbines with 30-round magazines?

[GearedForwards]

As I've stated before, I prefer a 20-round magazine. And, with a 5.56mm carbine, I'd be perfectly happy with a 10 round magazine for "home defense", believing that I'm not at particularly significant risk.

Yet....as you have learned, I like to argue. So let me make an argument for the 30-round magazine in a point by point way:

-- the 5.56 NATO round, like the 7.62x39mm AKM round, is an "intermediate rifle" round. In layperson terms, it is a weak round useful for short to medium ranges. I would not hunt deer with a 5.56mm. Real world combat experience has demonstrated that a 5.56mm is not very effective in stopping a close-range assailant before said attacker can inflict a lethal injury upon you, the defender. For this reason, multiple shots are likely to be required to stop an assailant and prevent the defender from being injured. This is common practice, and the way I was trained. At household ranges, I would never shoot once. How many times?  Dunno.....3 minimum...4 to 6 times sounds reasonable and prudent. (With handguns, we sometimes see the police use twice as many to stop the threat cold.)

-- The home defense situation is likey to involve multiple invaders/attackers. Hard to say how many, but 3-5 is a good planning number. So, best to plan for 3-5 potential attackers.

-- It is unrealistic to think that the average, reasonably trained person will hit their target with every shot in a highly stressful situation. If you look at police shootings, they demonstrate a relatively low hit rate. A 75% hit rate is a generous figure. That means we'll need to fire 1.333 shots to get one useful hit.

So, here's our math: 5 attackers X 4 shots per attacker X 1.333 efficacy coefficient = 26.6 rounds required. If we round up....27. If all I have is a 30-round magazine, there is 1 in the chamber and 2 in the magazine when the dust is settled. Time for a "tactical reload".

That is the logic behind the home defender wanting a 30-round magazine. (Personally, I think the logic is flawed, but that is just me.) The 30-round magazine provides enough ammunition to handle a very serious situation and not require a magazine change (which, in combat conditions, may require some skill.).  If you think a 30-round magazine seems excessively large, why is it that police cruisers now carry AR-15 carbines with 30-round magazines?

Appreciate the response but you misunderstood the post you quoted, it was this:

I understand the desire and logic that some have for a 30 round magazine, but what is the possible defense of a civilian being able to own a 100 rd magazine?

To actually engage with your post, since you took the time to write it out:

Number of attackers: Is this based in a statistic or something? I would have thought the typical 'home defense' scenario would be one or two intruders, not five?

Logic of 5.56 power and accuracy under duress: This would then beg the question, why not a shotgun? More stopping power, a lower degree of accuracy needed, I think (?) lower risk of over penetration?*

*Bonus thinking: My personal choice would probably be either a short shotgun, or a pistol caliber carbine, a full size AR seems impractical for moving in a enclosed space, even for trained users, nevermind civilians.

[Nix]

Appreciate the response but you misunderstood the post you quoted, it was this:

Oops. Sorry.

I understand the desire and logic that some have for a 30 round magazine, but what is the possible defense of a civilian being able to own a 100 rd magazine?

Second amendment. And, nobody in a gun fight has ever been heard to say, "wish I'd brought less ammo." 

Number of attackers: Is this based in a statistic or something? I would have thought the typical 'home defense' scenario would be one or two intruders, not five?

Don't quote me, but I think 3-4 is more common than 1-2. A burglary may be a one man affair, but home invasion is a violent event with multiple attackers.


Logic of 5.56 power and accuracy under duress: This would then beg the question, why not a shotgun? More stopping power, a lower degree of accuracy needed, I think (?) lower risk of over penetration?*

At close range, 10m or less, a shotgun needs to be aimed. The shot doesn't spread out that much, but acts like a clump. 

Full disclosure: I keep a loaded shotgun in the closet. For the reasons you cite, although the "over penetration" risk is still significant.

*Bonus thinking: My personal choice would probably be either a short shotgun, or a pistol caliber carbine, a full size AR seems impractical for moving in a enclosed space, even for trained users, nevermind civilians.

Like you, given concerns about over-penetration and risk to to bystanders, I'd prefer a shotgun or pistol-caliber carbine. (Obviously, I went with the old 12-bore.) However, an AR-15 with a legal 16" barrel is reasonably good in enclosed spaces, and probably handier than my shotgun. (Think about the difference between a shouldered carbine and a handgun held at arm's length--not much.) In terms of "stopping power" I think the shotgun is superior, but, allowing for a 30-round magazine, the AR is good enough.

I'll just add, for me, a well designed and equipped AR is like a light saber. There is nothing better. Frangible ammunition can mitigate the over-penetration risks. AR's can be easily equipped with lights and optics to ensure good target identification and accuracy.

Add: why the heck aren't you sleeping?

[Nix]

As an aside: I've had my automobile broken into three times (that I know of), I've had someone break into my half-basement once (installed window bars after that), and I've had someone burgle my garage (door left unlocked, my bad). I've had bullets from a drive-by shooting hit my house (I never understood that.). However, I don't consider myself to be at significant risk for crime or home invasion. I think that many people live in more dangerous areas and I'm reasonably safe. 

[GearedForwards]

Oops. Sorry.

Add: why the heck aren't you sleeping?

I live in the UK, but I live on Central US time 

Second amendment. And, nobody in a gun fight has ever been heard to say, "wish I'd brought less ammo."

Granted the latter, but rough Googl-fu says that's an additional 1.9lbs of ammo alone, nevermind the size of the expanded magazine. That doesn't seem practical at all for anything than extreme (at the) range shooting, and, well a 'target rich' environment. As a litmus test of this, what size magazine is standard for the average US soldier and what kind of role would have a more expanded capacity similar to this?

Don't quote me, but I think 3-4 is more common than 1-2. A burglary may be a one man affair, but home invasion is a violent event with multiple attackers.

Oh, I was thinking more like all cases you would need to resort to a firearm for home defense: violent someone you know (ex, family member, friend etc.) at the door, somebody under the influence of drugs, burglary etc.

I couldn't find any actual stats on the number in a home invasion given a short, yet depressing search, but found it interesting that southern states apparently get more home invasions than east coast, which I think is largely more restrictive on guns?

At close range, 10m or less, a shotgun needs to be aimed. The shot doesn't spread out that much, but acts like a clump.

I didn't think it'd spread out that much, but given that in a home you're more likely dealing in more confined spaces, e.g. doorways, hallways, stair cases, that it would still have a higher chance of some impact vs smaller, single projectiles fired in succession. I've never fired a shotgun personally though, so just speculation.

In terms of "stopping power" I think the shotgun is superior, but, allowing for a 30-round magazine, the AR is good enough.

But doesn't that depend on getting more rounds on target and being able to fire that amount of rounds to begin with? I guess when it comes to stopping power I find it odd to think of something you'll likely need to hit with several or more times as the efficient choice, but again speculation on my part.

I'll just add, for me, a well designed and equipped AR is like a light saber. There is nothing better. Frangible ammunition can mitigate the over-penetration risks. AR's can be easily equipped with lights and optics to ensure good target identification and accuracy.

Isn't this the case for a large number of pistols, PCCs, and shotguns now too? Adding a rail top and bottom isn't obtrusive and seems to have become far more common in recent decades.

[GearedForwards]

As an aside: I've had my automobile broken into three times (that I know of), I've had someone break into my half-basement once (installed window bars after that), and I've had someone burgle my garage (door left unlocked, my bad). I've had bullets from a drive-by shooting hit my house (I never understood that.). However, I don't consider myself to be at significant risk for crime or home invasion. I think that many people live in more dangerous areas and I'm reasonably safe. 

I would 'mostly' say that you live in an area with reasonably high crime, not that it is particularly unsafe to your bodily health.

Although kudos to you for sticking it out, I would have moved out of sheer annoyance and financial cost (assuming this sample is at one residence, and not spread out over a twenty plus years or something).

The fact that your house was hit by any drive by rounds is terrifying, and I'm glad you and yours weren't injured by that event.

What's a 'half' basement? 

[Adam5]

I have finally been able to read the whole thread and would like to write a few things in response:

1) I would avoid using "statistics" reported in the media concerning mass shootings and to support or to rebut calls for stricter gun control laws in the US. There is a lack of consensus on a definition for mass shootings. I have seen reports on the number of mass shootings in the US in 2022 up to the current date ranging from 4 to 240+. I found many articles online that repeated numbers to support the focus of the article without a thorough examination of how the numbers were derived.

2) As Fireman pointed out earlier, several definitions for mass shootings cover events that are different in nature than the Uvalde shootings, including shootings at bars/night clubs and gang-related shootings. Likewise, many school shooting events are of a different nature than Uvalde.

3) I have seen articles that state it has been definitively proven stricter gun control laws leads to less gun-related homicides in the US. Such statements are not completely true, for they ignore the higher per capita firearm homicide rates for strict gun law states such as Maryland and Delaware and the lower per capita firearm homicide rates for lax gun law states such as New Hampshire and Idaho. There are other factors involved.



4) I am uncertain how many mass shooting events would be avoided by banning semiautomatic weapons such as AR-15. If we use one of the broader definitions for mass shootings (4 or more people shot but not necessarily killed), then number of events may not change substantially. However, the number of total victims may decrease by a substantial amount.

5) This goes against my libertarian leaning, but stronger red flag laws may reduce the number of mass shooting victims substantially and should merit consideration.

6) Gun control laws predominately explain the difference in firearm homicides rates beween the UK and the US. Socio-economic factors predominately explain the difference in firearm homicides rates between Switzerland and the US. Stringent gun control laws would cause an abundance of social unrest. It seems to me that tackling the socio-economic factors would be more beneficial.

7) I personally have no desire to own any type of firearm. But I have no problem with any individual of sound mind and proper training in the use of a firearm owning one, including an AR-15. I would prefer that firearm owners be required to demonstrate the possession of both.

[Aloha]

It has been mentioned a few times that if the "bad guys" can't/won't access guns then they will use other means (eg running over people with cars/trucks, setting off explosions etc).

While this is true, it seems to me that there are a lot more motivated "bad guys" in the US by comparison with other rich, developed countries (mine amongst them). 

So putting aside the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of any laws restricting access to guns and ammunition, what are the factors leading to so many US citizens deciding to go off the rails and kill as many innocent people as they can ? 

I don't think simply blaming "mental illness" as a catch all is a good enough explanation, there must be some underlying factor/s that exist to a much greater degree in the US than elsewhere.  There are plenty of disaffected people in other countries too, but very few transition to mass murder.

Is it more poverty, more broken homes, more personal violence, less empathy, greater desire for independence, difficulty obtaining healthcare (including mental health),more feeling of hopelessness, more exposure to racism or some other factors that explain the disparity ?

Yes Greg all of that.  I mentioned copy cat as well which is likely a whole other set of issues that would motivate someone to mass kill.  I believe there are multiple reasons.  Those who study this still don't know.  Of those who have killed however there are some mental illness, BPD, antisocial, paranoid, depressed, PTSD,  as well as other factors. 

I'm afraid we are not stopping those who want to do such a thing.  The ones we have a chance at stopping if we look to who has done this are those who have reached out, spoke out, acted out.  The incidents involving these individuals are what upset me most.  They all do but when someone is all but telling us when and where we need to take this serious.  Family members, friends, coworkers, professionals all need to take them serious.