Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Loren Pechtel]

The press briefing after the shooting featured:

• The police chief, the fire department chief, a gaggle of Texas politicians
• An announcement of the number of dead--9 people, two in the hospital
• A lone police officer on separate business in the mall heard the gunfire, ran to the scene, and shot the killer dead.
• Speeches by each politician expressing sympathy and urging prayers. Each got some face time at the podium, identified themselves, and said roughly the same thing.
• No questions permitted
• No other information. Nothing about the shooter, weapon, or other details.

The police chief responded to a shouted question as they quickly filed out--the gunman was among the dead. The local politicians are solidly pro-NRA, but they emphasized how safe their community was. The locals appeared not to want to talk about things like type of weapon, age and details of the shooter, how quickly the police officer engaged him after he started shooting.

Yeah, they're not saying anything because this was a magidiot and that's QOP country.

CNN gave more details--that the shooter was dressed in black tactical gear. So this was a deliberate premeditated mass shooting, and the shooter wanted to survive long enough to kill a lot of people. It sounds like he was "neutralized" very quickly, but he managed to kill 8 people and wound several others before he was stopped. He had what looked like an AR15. A detail that the local officials pointedly left out of their briefing.

Tactical gear is going to do nothing to let him survive longer. Note that they didn't say body armor (legal in Texas if you're not a felon.) Tactical gear is mostly just a symbol in a situation like this.

 

[bilby]

How about addressing the fact that handguns are 10x as likely to kill?

You're absolutely correct, again.

You do indeed need very strict regulation of handguns, to the point where they too are almost impossible for ordinary citizens to obtain.

What confuses me is that you seem to imagine that this somehow constitutes an argument against strict regulation of AR-15 and similar rifles.

 

[Toni]

They are most certainly anti-Black. But they call it anti-Woke, because they don't want to lose the support of the "decent folk" of Americana-land.

Those are not the same thing. Not by a longshot. Being anti-black is being against a whole race of people. Being anti-woke is being against a particular political ideology associated with anti-police riots of 2014-2020.
To conflate the two is highly disingenuous.

I think there's a lot more overlap that you are comfortable with.

Think about it: where did the term: woke arise? What people gave us that term and what did it mean?

From Wiki (link below)

Woke is an adjective derived from African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination"

I'll leave you with a couple of links to articles that discuss the term and the history of its use:

From Wiki:

Woke - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and from Vox:

How being "woke" lost its meaning

Stay woke: How a Black activist watchword got co-opted in the culture war.

www.vox.com

The term woke from Wiki (linked above:

Woke is an adjective derived from African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination"

So, yes, the right's development and use of the term anti-woke is exactly what it seems: It's calling on us (all people, but especially white people) to remain blind to racial prejudice and discrimination. The use of the word 'woke' by the right is an intentional bastardization of the meaning, a belittling of the concept of actually being awake and seeing what is surrounding us all, but in particular black folks and other people of color.

 

[ZiprHead]

How about addressing the fact that handguns are 10x as likely to kill?

I agree. We should ban handguns.

 

[Copernicus]

“number of homicides by AR15 divided by number of AR15s”

… which of course becomes a more and more benign indicator with every new AR sold. Obviously we need to buy a shitload more AR15s to drive that ratio into irrelevance!

I think that a more interesting denominator should be something like "number of AR15s used in reported mass shootings". These guns are selected by mass murderers in part because of their usefulness in shooting a lot of people in a short time, and I think that the statistics will bear that out. Most people who own the guns are never going to commit crimes with them, but that doesn't reduce their significance as a danger to public safety. Most people who own AR15s will never use them to harm another person, but they are still the gun that seems most popular among mass shooters.

Mass shootings are fundamentally an exercise in choosing notoriety over being anonymous. Thus expect symbols regardless of whether they are useful or not. While most mass shootings are thought about for a fair amount of time before they happen there is usually little meaningful planning. Rarely do they seem have a remotely effective plan and it typically falls apart at the first sign of resistance. (After all, about the only place to actually learn about how to do it is from ISIS.) Even the Las Vegas shooter, who seemed to have planned far better than most, still quit shooting the moment resistance showed up even though he successfully drove them off.

Er, ok. Not sure how that addresses anything I said, nor do I think the motives or planning of mass shooters is relevant to the problem, which is first and foremost the availability of guns to kill large numbers of people in a short space of time.

 

[Copernicus]

Tactical gear is going to do nothing to let him survive longer. Note that they didn't say body armor (legal in Texas if you're not a felon.) Tactical gear is mostly just a symbol in a situation like this.

OK, that's an interesting opinion. These mass shooters seem to believe differently, as do a great many other people. I'm no expert on the use of the weapons or the body armor.

 

[Copernicus]

Arguing that we ban both handguns and assault rifles is a distraction intended to make a ban on assault rifles not just difficult, but nearly impossible. The Supreme Court has already declared that the Second Amendment, despite its actual wording, was really intended to guarantee a right to own a personal weapon for self defense. I think it was wrongly decided, as did 4 of the 9 justices on the Court (and historical precedent), but that pretty much means that handguns probably cannot be banned. Those are weapons that make more sense for personal self defense than assault rifles designed to be used on a battlefield.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Arguing that we ban both handguns and assault rifles is a distraction intended to make a ban on assault rifles not just difficult, but nearly impossible. The Supreme Court has already declared that the Second Amendment, despite its actual wording, was really intended to guarantee a right to own a personal weapon for self defense. I think it was wrongly decided, as did 4 of the 9 justices on the Court (and historical precedent), but that pretty much means that handguns probably cannot be banned. Those are weapons that make more sense for personal self defense than assault rifles designed to be used on a battlefield.

Well, recent history has proven that Supreme Court precedence is not a sacred thing so given enough time there may one day be a majority of justices willing to reinterpret the second amendment.

 

[Copernicus]

Arguing that we ban both handguns and assault rifles is a distraction intended to make a ban on assault rifles not just difficult, but nearly impossible. The Supreme Court has already declared that the Second Amendment, despite its actual wording, was really intended to guarantee a right to own a personal weapon for self defense. I think it was wrongly decided, as did 4 of the 9 justices on the Court (and historical precedent), but that pretty much means that handguns probably cannot be banned. Those are weapons that make more sense for personal self defense than assault rifles designed to be used on a battlefield.

Well, recent history has proven that Supreme Court precedence is not a sacred thing so given enough time there may one day be a majority of justices willing to reinterpret the second amendment.

The Heller decision is far more limited in scope than the way it is portrayed in social media and the press. The assumption is that the Supreme Court means to expand it further to block Democratic attempts to impose federal controls on weapon ownership. However, as it stands, the decision only seems to approve ownership of a weapon for personal self defense. It is not about the type of weapon owned. If it comes down to something like a ban on the size of magazines, types of ammo, or types of guns, there is already precedent in place for that kind of regulation. Nothing in the Constitution says anything about registration of legally owned weapons or licensing gun owners. The amendment itself is clearly grounded in militia duty, which I think the Heller decision simply contradicts. So I agree with you that future courts may return to the older interpretation that the amendment is really a collective, rather than individual, right. However, that question is moot right now, and we can still hope that the pro-gun extremists on the Court will hesitate to impose even crazier interpretations on the amendment.

 

[Derec]

Arguing that we ban both handguns and assault rifles is a distraction intended to make a ban on assault rifles not just difficult, but nearly impossible.

You are right there. It's a conundrum.
Banning all (or most) firearms would be effective in reducing gun violence, but would be difficult to pass in all but the most left-wing states. And it would be declared unconstitutional under any configurations of SCOTUS we are likely to have over the next 50 years or so.
Otoh, banning so-called "assault weapons" is possible to pass even on federal level if Dems have a good election. And it would get past some realistic makeups of SCOTUS (probably not this one though). But it would not accomplish much (if anything non-negligible), as "assault weapons" are very rarely used to actually kill people compared with handguns, and even most of those could be done with handguns or other rifles if "assault weapons" are banned.

Those are weapons that make more sense for personal self defense than assault rifles designed to be used on a battlefield.

Assault rifles are already very strictly regulated. Those weapons, which are as you say "designed to be used on a battlefield", are different than civilians semiauto rifles that are getting so much ire from certain quarters.

 

[Patooka]

Assault rifles are already very strictly regulated.

Quite literally everywhere else in the world would have tougher restrictions on AR-15s, PS90s, SA58 FALs, SL8s, AUG SAs, PTR 600s etc and are just as capable as their military counterparts. Each of the examples I just listed share over 95% of their parts with the military model. The ATF even lets you mount a grenade launcher on some. Don't give me this bullshit about "strictly regulated" or "different to military versions". The inferior civilian stuff you are attempting to handwave is vastly superior to what was used on D-Day. If you honestly believe a typical civilian should be allowed access to such kit by default, I can't help you.

 

[Copernicus]

Assault rifles are already very strictly regulated. Those weapons, which are as you say "designed to be used on a battlefield", are different than civilians semiauto rifles that are getting so much ire from certain quarters.

Right. They cannot legally be converted to auto, but that is the main difference. They can still be used to kill a lot of people in just seconds, and they still produce incredible bodily damage with .223 ammo. Our civilian weapons could be used on the battlefield as is, even though they wouldn't be as effective as the full-auto real thing.

 

[Derec]

If you honestly believe a typical civilian should be allowed access to such kit by default, I can't help you.

I think a "typical civilian" should have access to these rifles.
I do not think access to any firearm should be "by default". I advocate stricter laws (but not bans or virtual bans) governing access to all firearms.
You want to ban rifles responsible for a very small fraction of homicides (less than "hands, fists and feet" actually) and yet access to much deadlier (in terms of people killed with them in the real world) would remain as is. That is madness to me.

 

[Derec]

They can still be used to kill a lot of people in just seconds, and they still produce incredible bodily damage with .223 ammo.

And yet rifles are rarely used for homicides. Most homicides are done either with handguns or sharp or blunt instruments. So why use up so much energy trying to ban a minor problem in the grand scheme of things?
Btw, rifles other than scary-looking "assault weapons" use .223/5.56x39 ammo. And there are other high-powered rifle cartridges. The Winchester 308/7.62x51 has about twice the kinetic energy of the .223.

Our civilian weapons could be used on the battlefield as is, even though they wouldn't be as effective as the full-auto real thing.

True. So?
Doesn't change the fact that a very small fraction of our annual homicide victims were homicided with one of those.

 

[bilby]

Our civilian weapons could be used on the battlefield as is, even though they wouldn't be as effective as the full-auto real thing.

The British and Australian armies train their soldiers to use full-auto only in the most limited of circumstances, with single shot and burst modes being preferred in almost all situations.

A British soldier who used full-auto on the battlefield without orders to do so, or a clear tactical scenario in which full-auto fire is appropriate (such as suppressing incoming fire from an enemy force of greatly superior numbers, in order to cover a retreat), would certainly be asked to explain why he was wasting ammunition.

A Commonwealth soldier required to use an AR-15 in place of his usual personal weapon, would likely not feel noticeably disadvantaged by its lack of a full-auto option, in the vast majority of cases.

 

[bilby]

So why use up so much energy trying to ban a minor problem in the grand scheme of things?

Why use up so much energy in doing anything, if it doesn't solve all of every problem?

Speed is rarely the sole cause of motor vehicle crashes. DUI is far more of an issue, as are fatigue, distraction, and impatience.

Yet none of this constitutes an argument against the posting and enforcement of speed limits; Because it's quite possible to for the law to address more than one problem.

If handguns require new and stricter regulations, that's totally irrelevant to the question of whether rifles too require new and stricter regulations. The only reason to bring up these irrelevant distractions is to attempt to block the regulation of either.

If a few people are killed by speeding drivers, then the existence of far greater numbers of victims of drunk drivers neither justifies opposition to speed limits and their enforcement, nor renders speeding a non-issue.

Worse things happen? Great. Let's regulate those things too, right after we finish discussing this particular bad thing - even though it might not be the worst thing imaginable.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Minor problem?

I ponder how many have ever viewed losing a child as a minor problem. Talk about wording things poorly. It might be a low percentage of gun deaths, but it sure the fuck isn't uncommon or minor.

 

[Elixir]

The only reason to bring up these irrelevant distractions is to attempt to block the regulation of either.

That’s what right wing gun lobby apologists do. Pretending to stake out some reasonable-sounding “middle ground“ that leaves acres of room for increasing gun sales, is the name of the game.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Banning all (or most) firearms would be effective in reducing gun violence,

I always heard that it wouldn’t be effective because criminals don’t obey the law and guns are so prevalent that any criminal can get a gun anyway. This seems inconsistent with right wing talking points.

 

[Copernicus]

Banning all (or most) firearms would be effective in reducing gun violence,

I always heard that it wouldn’t be effective because criminals don’t obey the law and guns are so prevalent that any criminal can get a gun anyway. This seems inconsistent with right wing talking points.

Derec knows perfectly well that gun violence overall includes suicides and domestic violence, which do not really involve criminal acts against strangers. So his opinion echoes a common rhetorical tactic in gun violence debates. He isn't necessarily talking about gun violence just against strangers, as in armed robberies and mass shootings. There is also an assumption among pro-gunners that shootings of strangers would not decrease because certain types of weapons are banned, because criminals would get their hands on other types of guns or simply use the vast supply that already exists in private hands (thanks in large parts to their efforts over the years).

This thread is still about mass shootings and not just gun violence overall. I think that Derec's contention that AR-15's make no real difference to mass shootings is just flat out wrong. Mass shootings went down during the period before 2004, when the ban on assault rifles ended. Since then, mass shootings have risen steadily and especially rapidly in recent years, and a large number of them involve AR-15s. AR-15s are most in demand these days by gun owners because of their versatility, ease of use, and just plain status symbols. But they are also more deadly than most weapons on the market not because of their scary-looking exterior, but because of the velocity and type of bullets they use. They, together with the type of ammunition they use, simply does more damage to bodies than most of those other weapons. If mass shooters had less effective killing machines, then that would most likely reduce the number of dead and injured victims.

See the recent article for some statistics on the use of AR-15s in mass shootings, their popularity, and the debate surrounding them.

What makes the AR-15 so beloved and so reviled​