30 people shot in mass shooting

[CosmicJellyfish]

My statement was 100% accurate.

Accurate but misleading. You know what you are doing.

Do you not know what "some" means? 20% is "some". I did not say "a lot" or "much" or "overwhelming". I simply disputed the statement that there is "no desire". There is some desire to get rid of it, and more desire to change it. Both "20%" and "some" are more than "no desire".

 

[southernhybrid]

That would be true except the fucking SCOTUS decided to interpret that differently. I think it was during the Obama administration. Correct me if I'm wrong.

DC v. Heller, in 2008, so it was the last year of GW Bush actually. 5-4, along ideological lines.

From what I've been reading lately, the 2nd amendment was never really about any fucking well regulated militia.

Well the wording is a bit

Our fucking country was founded by a bunch of white, racist men who wanted guns to protect themselves from those who were different from themselves, including slaves, and indigenous people.

It's pretty amazing that in a thread about a black-on-black mass shooting you still find a way to blame whitey.

Let's not forget that these so called founders were all or mostly all slave holders. Women and anyone who wasn't a white male weren't give equal rights until over a century later. OMG! Don't get me started!

And what does that have to do with the subject of this thread?

Gun culture has gotten much worse since my childhood. I know we keep reading that the murder rate was higher in the 90s, but it sure looks like were going to exceed that if something doesn't give. And, I sure don't remember all these fucking mass shootings 20 or 30 years ago.

It's a lot easier to find out about them. A gang shooting like this one would probably not be on the news in Atlanta 30 years ago, but with the Internet it's a lot easier to disseminate local news stories quickly and widely.

Too many idiots and people who can't control their tempers have guns. Most gun owners want stricter gun laws, but due to the insanity of the R party, it ain't gonna happen, as far as I can see.

I don't agree with relaxation of gun laws in Georgia, but I doubt the persons who shot up this block party were legal gun owners. Maryland has very strict gun laws, but that does not prevent gangbangers to have more than enough.

Oh and if you haven't noticed, some Republicans want to raise the voting age to 25, but I haven't heard a peep from them wanting to raise the age for gun ownership.

And some Dems want to lower voting age to 16. Both do it because they think it will help them electorally.

Since when do we always stay on topic in these threads? I thought that Elixir was trying to make a point about our nation's problems with guns, not just starting a thread about a recent mass shooting. There was another one the same night in Kansas, I think, but we haven't mentioned that one.

Actually, there was a time, when murders in poor working class black neighborhoods weren't even mentioned in the news.

I've not heard a single Democratic politician ask to lower the voting age to 16. There was at least one Republican politician who seriously wants to raise it to 25. I just read so much news that I can't remember his name.

It's just the kids who want to lower it to 16. I'm a Dem who marched to have the age lowered to 18, when we had our peers being drafted during the insane Viet Nam War. Sometimes I think that was a mistake. I had to wait until I was 21 to vote.

Thanks for correcting me about when SCOTUS started acting crazy when it came to guns! I didn't bother to look it up.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

That would be true except the fucking SCOTUS decided to interpret that differently. I think it was during the Obama administration. Correct me if I'm wrong.

DC v. Heller, in 2008, so it was the last year of GW Bush actually. 5-4, along ideological lines.

From what I've been reading lately, the 2nd amendment was never really about any fucking well regulated militia.

Well the wording is a bit

Our fucking country was founded by a bunch of white, racist men who wanted guns to protect themselves from those who were different from themselves, including slaves, and indigenous people.

It's pretty amazing that in a thread about a black-on-black mass shooting you still find a way to blame whitey.

Let's not forget that these so called founders were all or mostly all slave holders. Women and anyone who wasn't a white male weren't give equal rights until over a century later. OMG! Don't get me started!

And what does that have to do with the subject of this thread?

Gun culture has gotten much worse since my childhood. I know we keep reading that the murder rate was higher in the 90s, but it sure looks like were going to exceed that if something doesn't give. And, I sure don't remember all these fucking mass shootings 20 or 30 years ago.

It's a lot easier to find out about them. A gang shooting like this one would probably not be on the news in Atlanta 30 years ago, but with the Internet it's a lot easier to disseminate local news stories quickly and widely.

Too many idiots and people who can't control their tempers have guns. Most gun owners want stricter gun laws, but due to the insanity of the R party, it ain't gonna happen, as far as I can see.

I don't agree with relaxation of gun laws in Georgia, but I doubt the persons who shot up this block party were legal gun owners. Maryland has very strict gun laws, but that does not prevent gangbangers to have more than enough.

Oh and if you haven't noticed, some Republicans want to raise the voting age to 25, but I haven't heard a peep from them wanting to raise the age for gun ownership.

And some Dems want to lower voting age to 16. Both do it because they think it will help them electorally.

Since when do we always stay on topic in these threads? I thought that Elixir was trying to make a point about our nation's problems with guns, not just starting a thread about a recent mass shooting. There was another one the same night in Kansas, I think, but we haven't mentioned that one.

Actually, there was a time, when murders in poor working class black neighborhoods weren't even mentioned in the news.

I've not heard a single Democratic politician ask to lower the voting age to 16. There was at least one Republican politician who seriously wants to raise it to 25. I just read so much news that I can't remember his name.

It's just the kids who want to lower it to 16. I'm a Dem who marched to have the age lowered to 18, when we had our peers being drafted during the insane Viet Nam War. Sometimes I think that was a mistake. I had to wait until I was 21 to vote.

Thanks for correcting me about when SCOTUS started acting crazy when it came to guns! I didn't bother to look it up.

Vivek Ramaswami.

 

[bilby]

single shot muskets, which required upwards of 30, 40 seconds to reload and prime every. single. round.

I know a man who can fire five aimed shots in a minute from a seventeenth century model smoothbore muzzle loading matchlock.

My personal best is three.

The trick is to tap the stock on the ground so that the ball compacts the black powder without being rammed; It's a LOT quicker to fire such a weapon if you don't fiddle around with a ramrod between each shot. It would likely get you bawled out by any seventeenth century militia sergeant if you did it during training, but if it's crazy but it works, it's probably not crazy.

Muzzle loading rifles (which largely replaced smooth bore guns in the eighteenth century) were much more accurate and had longer range, but were rather slower to load unless you sacrificed both accuracy and range by using undersized balls; This remained the case until the invention of the Minié Ball in 1846.

Certainly a skilled shooter could get a shot every ten seconds out of an eighteenth century gun, as long as his targets were at fairly close range, and he had planned ahead and brought some sub-calibre ammunition.

That's still a long way short of the 45 per minute rate of fire for an AR-15, and even further from the 400 per minute achievable with a bump stock.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I cited 30 to 40 seconds based on visits to Fort Necessity, etc., where Colonial/Revolutionary era weapons are displayed and fired. I'll accept a shorter time period because it doesn't change the point appreciably. If you time traveled Madison and Franklin to one of our shooting ranges and had someone fire an automatic rifle, I'm sure our founding fathers would say, "Egad, sir!" although Franklin might say, "What the fuck was that!?"

 

[Elixir]

Gangbangers of course. They can’t afford good guns or the ammo they go through.
Today’s shooting in Philly is another story, five out of seven killed. That’s more like it. If you want to kill people, there’s nothing like an AR-style assault weapon. If the gangbangers had had them, they would have killed at least 20 out of the 30 hit (would have been more than 30 hit because they’re more accurate).
Obviously, if we want to get rid of gangbangers, the way to do it is to give them all ARs and cases of ammo.

 

[Derec]

Since when do we always stay on topic in these threads?

Beats me. For me, even if I stay on topic I get accused of "derailing" so the whole thing is handled very inconsistently.

I thought that Elixir was trying to make a point about our nation's problems with guns, not just starting a thread about a recent mass shooting. There was another one the same night in Kansas, I think, but we haven't mentioned that one.

There have been several shootings. In Kansas apparently two groups were shooting at each other and they caught one of the shooters.
Florissant man arrested after mass shooting at Kansas nightclub
No fatalities though.

There have also been mass shootings in Philly, Indianapolis and Fort Worth.
Names released of 5 people killed in Philadelphia mass shooting; sources ID suspect
3 dead, 8 injured after shooting in Fort Worth, Texas parking lot
No suspect(s) in custody on this one.
1 dead, 4 injured in shooting at Indianapolis block party
Like Bawlmer, the Indianapolis shooting involved a block party.

Actually, there was a time, when murders in poor working class black neighborhoods weren't even mentioned in the news.

Individual shootings, regardless of neighborhood, rarely make national news. They do get covered locally.
Mass shootings do get wider attention.

I've not heard a single Democratic politician ask to lower the voting age to 16.

Actually, many of them are.
125 Democrats and 1 Republican Vote to Lower Voting Age to 16

There was at least one Republican politician who seriously wants to raise it to 25. I just read so much news that I can't remember his name.

Vivek somethingorother? He has held no elected office and in his presidential run he is hovering around 1-2%. To quote Brie Ramachandran-Schulhoff, he is "between 5% and not statistically significant".
And not even he is suggesting a hard age limit of 25. 18 year olds would still be able to vote if they do service (like military) or pass a civics test like the one required for naturalization. I think the latter part is a good idea. Require people to pass the civics test regardless of age! Too many idiots and/or uninformed people voting. Larry David had something here.

Thanks for correcting me about when SCOTUS started acting crazy when it came to guns! I didn't bother to look it up.

I do not think Heller was so crazy. DC overreached with their handgun ban and SCOTUS reigned them in. I support reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, but not outright bans.

 

[Tigers!]

I do not think Heller was so crazy. DC overreached with their handgun ban and SCOTUS reigned them in. I support reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, but not outright bans.

Derec
For our edification, and to keep it simple, could you please list your five (5) top reasonable restrictions on gun ownership? I am sure you have listed them over multiple posts but a nice, consistent, easy to reference list would be advantageous.
(I ask this because as an outsider it would be nice to see what a Yank considers as a reasonable list of restrictions)

 

[Derec]

For our edification, and to keep it simple, could you please list your five (5) top reasonable restrictions on gun ownership? I am sure you have listed them over multiple posts but a nice, consistent, easy to reference list would be advantageous.
(I ask this because as an outsider it would be nice to see what a Yank considers as a reasonable list of restrictions)

I do not pretend I have a fully fledged out plan or anything. But my thoughts on it are:

• first, enforce existing laws. I think most gun crime is committed by people who are not legal users anyway. Dems don't really like that part because that's their constituency - people like Daunte Wright, Alton Sterling and Patrick Kimmons. With Daunte Wright, the response by the Dem mayor was to restrict traffic stops. Never mind that Wright should have been arrested on the outstanding gun warrant.
• Close loopholes like the gun show loophole
• I would even be in favor of licensing akin to driver's licenses. A licensee would demonstrate both knowledge of the law and proficiency in use of a firearm. And the license can of course be suspended or revoked. Background checks would be folded into licensing which would make them more efficient. A police officer would be able to check the status as would any gun dealer, ideally for an instantaneous approval or denial.

 

[Gospel]

Realistic and achievable. I can dig it.

 

[Derec]

Gangbangers of course. They can’t afford good guns or the ammo they go through.

Gangs have money. And what would you classify as a "good gun"?
Bangers favor handguns not because of money, but because unlike rifles they can be easily concealed on their person. You can't just tuck an AR15 into your waistband!

Today’s shooting in Philly is another story, five out of seven killed. That’s more like it.

By the way, this is the Philly shooter.
Gunman arrested for Philadelphia mass shooting that left 5 dead is BLM activist who wore women’s clothes: sources

If you want to kill people, there’s nothing like an AR-style assault weapon.

Oh please! First of all, xir had both an AR15 and a handgun. Second, 5 dead and two wounded are rookie numbers. The VT shooter managed several times that with just two handguns.

If the gangbangers had had them, they would have killed at least 20 out of the 30 hit (would have been more than 30 hit because they’re more accurate).

That's a pretty big assumption backed by nothing. Greater accuracy only helps when you "aim and hit a ni**a" (to quote Snoop) which the B-more shooters from the OP did not do much of And at the range of these drive-bys, you can aim just as well with a Glock.

Obviously, if we want to get rid of gangbangers, the way to do it is to give them all ARs and cases of ammo.

What would it help if they can't shoot straight?

 

[Gun Nut]

Of course, to the Constitution's drafters, arms meant single shot muskets, which required upwards of 30, 40 seconds to reload and prime every. single. round.

And to the Constitution drafters "press" meant manually set lead type. A literal press.

Technology marches on. It would be silly to argue that the 1st amendment only applies to communication technologies that were invented by 1791.

Btw, the technology behind semiauto firearms is over a century old itself.

But rest assured, the Convention of 1781 would've been fine with over 10 million modern combat weapons being sold like ham sandwiches in the republic.

Not this shit again. Combat weapons are strictly regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934.
You can't just buy an M16.

It is neither the WORD "arms" nor the word "press" that is in question... It is what it empowers (or disempowers) people and / or government to do... If you want to discuss how changes in information distribution technology raises the question of the founder's intentions, then so be it... it is a fair question if you think the founders never wanted the press to be so free as for there to be instant acquisition of new information... it is also "whataboutism" and a derail... we are talking about arms... and if the founder's intent was to allow every citizen a weapon that can kill 30 people a second, then make that argument if you wish.

 

[Elixir]

I would even be in favor of licensing akin to driver's licenses. A licensee would demonstrate both knowledge of the law and proficiency in use of a firearm. And the license can of course be suspended or revoked. Background checks would be folded into licensing which would make them more efficient. A police officer would be able to check the status as would any gun dealer, ideally for an instantaneous approval or denial.

I agree. The licensing regs alone would bring about significant mitigation of the mayhem.
I mean … Things that are made for the primary purpose of transportation require demonstrations of proficiency to get the mandatory license, and the items themselves have to be registered. Shouldn‘t things made for the primary purpose of killing people be subject to the same requirements?
Who out there disagrees besides gun sellers?

 

[Gun Nut]

Gangbangers of course. They can’t afford good guns or the ammo they go through.
Today’s shooting in Philly is another story, five out of seven killed. That’s more like it. If you want to kill people, there’s nothing like an AR-style assault weapon. If the gangbangers had had them, they would have killed at least 20 out of the 30 hit (would have been more than 30 hit because they’re more accurate).
Obviously, if we want to get rid of gangbangers, the way to do it is to give them all ARs and cases of ammo.

At my range, one of the retail folks was commenting on how much he hated a particular brand of handgun... its one of the cheapest available. I asked what about it he hated and he responded by saying, "the type of people that buy it"... in context, he was referring to people that might need to "get rid" of it after using it.

 

[Tigers!]

For our edification, and to keep it simple, could you please list your five (5) top reasonable restrictions on gun ownership? I am sure you have listed them over multiple posts but a nice, consistent, easy to reference list would be advantageous.
(I ask this because as an outsider it would be nice to see what a Yank considers as a reasonable list of restrictions)

I do not pretend I have a fully fledged out plan or anything. But my thoughts on it are:

• first, enforce existing laws. I think most gun crime is committed by people who are not legal users anyway. Dems don't really like that part because that's their constituency - people like Daunte Wright, Alton Sterling and Patrick Kimmons. With Daunte Wright, the response by the Dem mayor was to restrict traffic stops. Never mind that Wright should have been arrested on the outstanding gun warrant.
• Close loopholes like the gun show loophole
• I would even be in favor of licensing akin to driver's licenses. A licensee would demonstrate both knowledge of the law and proficiency in use of a firearm. And the license can of course be suspended or revoked. Background checks would be folded into licensing which would make them more efficient. A police officer would be able to check the status as would any gun dealer, ideally for an instantaneous approval or denial.

As the estimable Gospel noted these are realistic and achievable and make a good first pass.
Again as an outsider I must ask - why are they not being done now? When will you do them?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For our edification, and to keep it simple, could you please list your five (5) top reasonable restrictions on gun ownership? I am sure you have listed them over multiple posts but a nice, consistent, easy to reference list would be advantageous.
(I ask this because as an outsider it would be nice to see what a Yank considers as a reasonable list of restrictions)

I do not pretend I have a fully fledged out plan or anything. But my thoughts on it are:

• first, enforce existing laws. I think most gun crime is committed by people who are not legal users anyway. Dems don't really like that part because that's their constituency - people like Daunte Wright, Alton Sterling and Patrick Kimmons. With Daunte Wright, the response by the Dem mayor was to restrict traffic stops. Never mind that Wright should have been arrested on the outstanding gun warrant.
• Close loopholes like the gun show loophole
• I would even be in favor of licensing akin to driver's licenses. A licensee would demonstrate both knowledge of the law and proficiency in use of a firearm. And the license can of course be suspended or revoked. Background checks would be folded into licensing which would make them more efficient. A police officer would be able to check the status as would any gun dealer, ideally for an instantaneous approval or denial.

Yup, they conveniently ignore how most gun crime comes from those who weren't legally allowed firearms. That's why the focus on mass shootings--the demographics aren't remotely similar to most gun crime.

I'd go a bit farther with the licensing--licenses would be scannable and the result would pull up both a photograph of the license holder and whether the license was valid. (Obviously, assuming you have data service.) And I'd make it illegal to transfer a gun to someone you hadn't verified the license status of. Since the check is trivial it does not impose a troublesome burden to require it for even very minor transfers. (Which has been the sticking point of current universal background check measures--they impose a substantial burden on many temporary transfers of control.)

(Exceptions: It would always be legal to return a gun. It would be legal to transfer control of a packaged gun to a common carrier--shipping a gun isn't a chain of transfers. It would be legal to transfer a gun to a law enforcement officer in uniform. It would be legal to allow someone to use your gun under your direct observation without it being considered a transfer--it becomes a transfer at the point that you cease to directly observe the gun.)

(Also, I would fold the NFA items into the license. You pass the NFA background check once, not a separate check for each item.)

 

[bilby]

Yup, they conveniently ignore how most gun crime comes from those who weren't legally allowed firearms.

Which, if it were an important factor, would leave us bereft of any clue whatsoever about the reason why gun violence is so prevalent in the USA, while similar nations have far less gun violence, despite having plenty of people who aren't legally allowed firearms.

It's in fact obvious that most gun crime comes from legally allowed firearms, albeit often ones that have since been diverted to illegal use or illegal users.

 

[Gospel]

The VT shooter managed several times that with just two handguns.

Are you suggesting that had the Virginia Tech shooter opted for an AR-15 instead of handguns, the resulting casualties would have been fewer?

 

[blastula]

It's almost certainly a gang shooting. Bangers are not usually known for their marksmanship.

AR15s are very rarely used in crime anyway. So of course it is unlikely to be one.

Fail.

 

[blastula]

By the way, this is the Philly shooter.
Gunman arrested for Philadelphia mass shooting that left 5 dead is BLM activist who wore women’s clothes: sources

Another fail.