Continuation Today's Mass Shooting (2)

[William Parcher]

One of the two guns cost $1870.00. He posted a receipt for it.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by William Parcher

One of the two guns cost $1870.00. He posted a receipt for it.

For some reason I have the suspicion that he wasn't really worried about the credit card bill coming due.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Hungerford

You know, I actually read that as Hungerford the first time. You see what you expect.

[Checkmite]

Political action is the only way to prevent or even just somewhat mitigate incidents like these, so it makes no sense to arbitrarily impose some "no political talk around this incident for X amount of time" rule.

But if you insist on doing so, I would point out that it has been a week and a half since the weekend of carnage that included separate mass shootings in Buffalo, Los Angeles, Chicago, and elsewhere; surely that's a long enough delay that it's now okay to "politicize" those incidents instead. The arguments and talking points will be largely the same.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I do not think the post Hillsborough and Dunblane restrictions on type of firearm have made any difference. As Cumbria and Plymouth have shown, it is still possible to kill many people with the types still allowed.

You can't kill a couple of dozen as fast as you can pull the trigger though.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Rolling Stone (via Yahoo News) has a piece on Fox News coverage of the shooting. Lots of short clips to back-up what the reporter asserts:

Fox News’ Coverage of the Uvalde Shooting Was Sickening

Quote:

The reaction was especially egregious on Fox News, which decided to put bloviating pundits front and center as information about what happened became public, ignore even the most basic tenets of journalism in favor of reckless speculation, and bring on a steady procession of “experts” to offer harebrained solutions for the epidemic of people with guns killing people in schools. Here are a few examples of what the network broadcast to millions of Americans trying to make sense of what happened in Uvalde: ...

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

You can't kill a couple of dozen as fast as you can pull the trigger though.

I wonder if individual shots are not more accurate and allow more shots, than just squeezing the trigger and loads of bullets fly.

[Skeptical Greg]

If you wonder, then you have never shot full auto..

Meant to add:

If the targets are elementary school kids, then single shots are probably the way to go.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I wonder if individual shots are not more accurate and allow more shots, than just squeezing the trigger and loads of bullets fly.

Give me an AR and you start running, we'll find out.

[Captain_Swoop]

Abbott accuses O'Rourke of making a "selfish political stand" .

"We need to focus on the healing"


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/worl...ost_type=share

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Rolling Stone (via Yahoo News) has a piece on Fox News coverage of the shooting. Lots of short clips to back-up what the reporter asserts:

Fox News’ Coverage of the Uvalde Shooting Was Sickening

David WarMonger Frum had a pretty good comment about Fox the other day:

Quote:

I sometimes ponder the genius of a communications machine that can toggle so smoothly between

"They're sexualizing Mickey and Goofy!"

and

"They're DE-sexualizing M&Ms!"

[Stacyhs]

You want to talk about a mealy-mouthed, cliche'-drenched nonsense speech? Look no farther than what Greg Abbott just provided. The same old crap we've come to expect from gun rights advocate like him: Oh, the children! Oh, the families! Our hearts are broken! We need to come together as a community and give the families support! It's all about mental illness!" Blah, blah, blah... Not a damn word about the fact this 18 yr old could legally buy two AR15's and body armor. Not a damn word about guns access. Not a damn word about doing anything to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. THAT is "mealy-mouthed, cliche'-drenched" platitudes coming from Gov. Abbott who is going to headline the NRA meeting next week.

Beto O'Rourke stood up after Abbott was done and lambasted him said that insanity is allowing an 18 year old to legally buy AR15's without a background check. He got shouted down by the likes of Ted Cruz, Mr. Gun Money, about how this "was not the time to politicize this" (where have we heard that before?) and thrown out. Abbott and his gun-loving supporters didn't want to hear it or answer O'Rourke. They just wanted to silence him.

Abbott then went on to defend their gun law by telling us that 18 yr olds could by "long gun" (rifles) for the last 60 years and asked why, for the majority of those 60 years, they didn't have school shootings? He says he doesn't know the answer to that. Liar. We know why: failure to pass effective gun control laws predominantly fought by the GOP like him and Cruz, hate driven social media increasing radicalization, nationalism, and white supremacy, and the right-wing extremists taking control of the GOP.

Abbott touted his record on "school safety" laws. Once again, they want to deal with "solutions" that do not address the source of the problem: the lack of meaningful gun control.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

For some reason I have the suspicion that he wasn't really worried about the credit card bill coming due.

Since you brought it up, the credit card companies could easily refuse to allow guns and ammunition to be charged, and/or could refuse to offer their services to outlets that sell them. That might not make a huge dent, but it would at least convey the message that guns aren't ordinary consumer products.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Give me an AR and you start running, we'll find out.

It would be interesting to see a type of gun, shots fired, people hit study of mass shootings to see how much of an effect the type of gun has. I get the theory of a gun with lots of bullets and no need to constantly reload, allows more kills than a single shot, regular reload weapon. But what difference does it really make?

Hungerford - 2 x semi auto rifles and a handgun - 16 deaths, 15 injured
Dunblane - 4 x handguns - 16 deaths, 15 injured
Cumbria - 1 x shotgun, 1 x bolt action rifle - 12 deaths, 11 injured
Plymouth - 1 x shotgun - 5 death, 2 injured.

Another factor is movement. Dunblane was all inside one school, Hungerford and Plymouth were over shorter distances, but Cumbria was over a long distance as that shooter drove around.

Another factor is the shooter. The least known mass shooting in the UK was Monkseaton in 1989, when a male took his father's shotgun and shot at 17 people, killing 1 and injuring 14.

I am not convinced the type of gun is a major factor in how many die in mass shootings.

[The Atheist]

I'm sending my best prayers.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I wonder if individual shots are not more accurate and allow more shots, than just squeezing the trigger and loads of bullets fly.

In a small room, victims would have a better chance of charging someone between shots from a bolt-action rifle, or as he reloads after he fires the four or five rounds it holds. And you understand that AR15s etc. are semi-autos, right? They fire one shot per trigger pull -- very fast. They can be aimed quite accurately.

[Rolfe]

Point of information. Seventeen deaths at Dunblane. Sixteen small children and their teacher.

[crescent]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

so people just hide them under the bed. or practice until they can change mags real quick.

Sure - but the supply gradually dwindles.

And in the midst of a mad adrenaline rush, even a practiced shooter might still fumble while trying the switch out those mags. That slows things down - sometimes that's enough.

[Checkmite]

Updated information, according to press conferences with authorities:

1. The shooter wasn't wearing body armor after all. He had a tacti-cool vest which did have pockets for armor plates, but didn't have any armor plates in them.

2. The two AR-15 style rifles used in the mass shooting were recently obtained. The shooter bought the first rifle on May 17 which was his 18th birthday. The next day he bought 375 rounds of ammunition, and on May 20 he bought the second rifle. All purchases were made at the same store.

3. He lived with his grandmother, the one he shot before the school massacre. She is still alive, as of now.

4. 30 minutes before the attack, he sent a series of private Facebook messages to someone. The first one stated that he was going to shoot his grandmother, the second that he had done so, and a third stating he was going to shoot up an elementary school.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Nessie

It would be interesting to see a type of gun, shots fired, people hit study of mass shootings to see how much of an effect the type of gun has. I get the theory of a gun with lots of bullets and no need to constantly reload, allows more kills than a single shot, regular reload weapon. But what difference does it really make?

Hungerford - 2 x semi auto rifles and a handgun - 16 deaths, 15 injured
Dunblane - 4 x handguns - 16 deaths, 15 injured
Cumbria - 1 x shotgun, 1 x bolt action rifle - 12 deaths, 11 injured
Plymouth - 1 x shotgun - 5 death, 2 injured.

Another factor is movement. Dunblane was all inside one school, Hungerford and Plymouth were over shorter distances, but Cumbria was over a long distance as that shooter drove around.

Another factor is the shooter. The least known mass shooting in the UK was Monkseaton in 1989, when a male took his father's shotgun and shot at 17 people, killing 1 and injuring 14.

I am not convinced the type of gun is a major factor in how many die in mass shootings.

I likewise doubt it would make much difference for these kinds of spree shootings. Target selection seems to make more of a difference than anything.

All the victims from this recent shooting were in the same classroom. I really doubt the outcome would have been different had he used different guns.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Nessie

It would be interesting to see a type of gun, shots fired, people hit study of mass shootings to see how much of an effect the type of gun has. I get the theory of a gun with lots of bullets and no need to constantly reload, allows more kills than a single shot, regular reload weapon. But what difference does it really make?

Hungerford - 2 x semi auto rifles and a handgun - 16 deaths, 15 injured
Dunblane - 4 x handguns - 16 deaths, 15 injured
Cumbria - 1 x shotgun, 1 x bolt action rifle - 12 deaths, 11 injured
Plymouth - 1 x shotgun - 5 death, 2 injured.

Another factor is movement. Dunblane was all inside one school, Hungerford and Plymouth were over shorter distances, but Cumbria was over a long distance as that shooter drove around.

Another factor is the shooter. The least known mass shooting in the UK was Monkseaton in 1989, when a male took his father's shotgun and shot at 17 people, killing 1 and injuring 14.

I am not convinced the type of gun is a major factor in how many die in mass shootings.

You have just listed all the reasons given over the years against the move from single shot to magazine loading then to semi auto rifles for the military.

If what you say is true then why don't the military still use single shot or bolt action rifles?

That you can't see why having a 30 round magazine, semi auto rifle isn't an aid to killing lots of people quickly is mind boggling.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

It's obviously a political problem, or at least a political question.

Considering how laughably ineffective the liberal opposition is in this country, I doubt there's much reason to expect a solution. The dems have been asleep at the wheel for decades.

ETA: Dems leadership just successfully circled the wagons around a Texas anti-abortion incumbent to fend off a progressive challenger. Coincidentally, Rep. Cuellar publicly refused to refund NRA donations in response to prior mass shootings.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Democrat leadership just made a heroic 11th hour effort to protect an anti-abortion Texas Dem. incumbent with an A-rating from the NRA. he won by 117 votes.

The Republicans are publicly bathing in the blood of children and Dem leadership still thinks squashing progressives is more important than having principles about anything. Nothing is going to happen.

Dems probably couldn't get their own members to agree about a gun control bill, much less have the competency to go toe-to-toe with the Republicans on the issue.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by crescent

Sure - but the supply gradually dwindles.

3d printers.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I likewise doubt it would make much difference for these kinds of spree shootings. Target selection seems to make more of a difference than anything.

All the victims from this recent shooting were in the same classroom. I really doubt the outcome would have been different had he used different guns.

I thought I read he encountered security on the way in and then barricaded the classroom. Wouldn’t it have made a difference if he had just been armed with a bolt action shotgun?

For a start, he might not have felt as confident about carrying out a school shooting.

[Tero]

If Beto gets elected, he is likely to be shot.

Meanwhile:
https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-p...s-r-1848971668

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

30 minutes before the attack, he sent a series of private Facebook messages to someone.

You think maybe "someone" is in for some intense questioning followed by an interview with Dr. Phil?

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by lionking

Yes I agree it’s a huge effort, but in Australia we had massive semi automatic gun ownership in Australia, but after a number of well known massacres in Australia, culminating with Port Arthur, gun control happened. We haven’t had any since then.

Do gun deaths still happen here? Yes of course. But we don’t have pathetic loners tooling up and killing many people any more.

Did you have a massive anti-gun control "but mah freeeeedoms!" public and political party fighting against this sensible act?

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

You think maybe "someone" is in for some intense questioning followed by an interview with Dr. Phil?

What kind of 18 year old uses Facebook?

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Tero

Meanwhile:
https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-p...s-r-1848971668

Do they ever even change the wording of that?

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

I thought I read he encountered security on the way in and then barricaded the classroom. Wouldn’t it have made a difference if he had just been armed with a bolt action shotgun?

For a start, he might not have felt as confident about carrying out a school shooting.

Read between the lines and the cops ran away. Somehow there was an exchange of gunfire outside, then nothing while cops waited for backup and this guy killed without interference inside.

All this money we piss away on cops and when it's their time to risk their necks to actually serve their community they're all pissing their pants waiting for swat to show up. Meanwhile teachers are blocking bullets with their bodies.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Read between the lines and the cops ran away. Somehow there was an exchange of gunfire outside, then nothing while cops waited for backup and this guy killed without interference inside.

All this money we piss away on cops and when it's their time to risk their necks they're all pissing their pants waiting for swat to show up. Meanwhile teachers are blocking bullets with their bodies.

Yeah. That may well be true, but again, if he had been carrying a shotgun rather than semi-automatic weapons he may have felt less sure about carrying out the attack and the security would not have pissed their pants as much.

Of course nothing is guaranteed, and yes it is possible to have atrocities with as much as a knife as happened here in Japan by a guy with a knife in a school in Ikeda.

That said, if school shootings cannot be ended in the US there must be ways of reducing them.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by arayder

Some gun control advocates lack the understanding of how AR-15s (and fire arms in general) work to the degree that they can't figure out that there's no need to ban the weapon. What they want could be achieved by banning high cap mags.

This gets society around the positively horrific scenario in which the cops are sent out to confiscate bubba's rifle. Talk about blood in the streets!

In this scenario mags beyond ten rounds would be illegal. if you have one and turn it in you get voucher for a five or ten round mag. If you don't turn it in the cops are going to assume you smashed it to bits with a sledge hammer.

But the cops ain't searching your house because they saw an old picture of you at a 3 gun match with a 30 round mag.

If you show up in public or at the range with a high cap mag you are subject to it being confiscated and you getting fined.

Just saying. . .

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

so people just hide them under the bed. or practice until they can change mags real quick.

Back during the Clinton years gun magazines used to publish articles about how to bury guns in the event of government confiscation. I suspect some folks would bury their high cap mags as opposed to putting them under the bed. . .but it's the same idea. . . hide them.

Under the above plan a shooter would be nuts to take the high cap mags to a range or any place public since he/she wouldn't know who might be there and be willing to rat the shooter out. Even having them around where family or friends could see them wouldn't be smart since today's wife might be tomorrow's ex from hell and your so called old friend might harbor a grudge.

The bury-them-behind-the-barn plan fits with the scenario in which high cap mags are only putting into use during periods of civil unrest or when the owner is revolting against the government.

Or shooting up a school?

Hey, I didn't say the plan was perfect.

---------
Dope Clock II: It's been 345 days since Bobby Menard announced plans to create "Artists Valley". So far all he has done is lie through his teeth.

[Dr.Sid]

Some people would bury their guns. Most woouldn't. New owners wouldn't. Even instant ban and confiscation of every gun police can get hands on short of house search .. would take decades to really get rid of most of the guns.
But that's exactly why US should start somewhere.

[BobTheCoward]

For the gun confiscation people I have a question.

Gun owners are not creating negative externalities. While some gun owners create harm, it doesn't fall under the category that owning a gun inflicts a cost (like any level of pollution).

What theory of government power do you think applies in this situation?

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by lionking

What I find interesting is that a very conservative Australian Prime Minister John Howard, who I otherwise hated, brought gun control to Australia. He even wore bullet proof vests when standing up to gun owners at rallies.

So called progressive Biden will do nothing.

Biden isn't a progressive which is why we see a lot of animosity against him by some ISF members.

You're repeating the same mistake as another poster. Biden HAS done what he can so far through XO's. I already posted a year old article listing what he has done as far as he is legally able to do and how the GOP is fighting him on them. Here's another:

Quote:

President Joe Biden put on a modest White House ceremony Thursday to announce a half-dozen executive actions to combat what he called an “epidemic and an international embarrassment” of gun violence in America.

But he said much more is needed. And while Biden had proposed the most ambitious gun-control agenda of any modern presidential candidate, his moves underscored his limited power to act alone on guns with difficult politics impeding legislative action on Capitol Hill.

Biden’s new steps include a move to crack down on “ghost guns,” homemade firearms that lack serial numbers used to trace them and are often purchased without a background check. He’s also moving to tighten regulations on pistol-stabilizing braces like the one used in Boulder, Colorado, in a shooting last month that left 10 dead.

Quote:

“Some of the other big-ticket items are legislative,” said Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. “And that’s going to be very difficult.”

Biden mentioned a formidable list of priorities he’d like to see Congress tackle, including passing the Violence Against Women Act, eliminating lawsuit exemptions for gun manufacturers and banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. He also called on the Senate to take up House-passed measures to close background check loopholes.

But with an evenly-divided Senate — and any gun control legislation requiring 60 votes to pass — Democrats would have to keep every member of their narrow majority on board while somehow adding 10 Republicans.

Quote:

The House passed two bills in March largely along party lines that would expand and strengthen background checks for gun sales and transfers, a move that has broad public support. But most Republicans argue that strengthened checks could take guns away from law-abiding gun owners.

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden...0faa286e3df7b2

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Ladies and gentleman: the moderate perspective.

All I can say if the Dems adapt a "We don't need no stinking moderates" attitude it will not end well for them.
I am one of those who can easily see the moderates in both parties getting together and froming a party of their own if they are driven from both parties.

[arayder]

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

Some people would bury their guns. Most woouldn't. New owners wouldn't. Even instant ban and confiscation of every gun police can get hands on short of house search .. would take decades to really get rid of most of the guns.
But that's exactly why US should start somewhere.

My experience is that the mags will break or wear out before the guns do. So the recycle time/life span on the mags is shorter.

Between old high cap mags breaking, mag buy backs, confiscations (from people stupid enough to take them out in public), owners smashing their high cap mags to bits, or burying them and then either dying or forgetting which tree they are buried near. . . in a few years there might be a lot less high cap mags.

Just saying. . .

---------
Dope Clock II: It's been 345 days since Bobby Menard announced plans to create "Artists Valley". So far all he has done is lie through his teeth.

[crescent]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

3d printers.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

So what? Honestly - what the hell does that matter?

Not everybody has a 3D printer, or wants to make the effort of using the printer to make the magazine, or is willing to make the magazine for friends and acquaintances (especially if said magazine were illegal to make or own).

This is a frustrating thing in these arguments. If pro-gun advocates can find any way at all to work around a proposed law at all - even if, as in your example, the workaround would be illegal - then the proposed law must be utterly and 10,000% worthless.

There is value in making it more difficult to do these things, even if "making it more difficult" does not equal "make it impossible".

[Rolfe]

"If we make a law against this then people will just break it" isn't the killer argument for having no laws that some people think it is.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

What kind of 18 year old uses Facebook?

Oh, I don't know.