At least 8 dead in Mass Shooting du Jour

[Loren Pechtel]

You've provided two examples, of which I'm thankful. So is there a statistic on the number of murders that went punished in a manner not respective to the crime?

I am not aware of disinterested stats in that regard, no.

Exactly. I haven't found anything that struck me as honest, either. Thus I'm left with examining the ones I'm aware of.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I made a choice long ago to not learn to hunt or to use firearms but I see that as a personal choice.

So what do you use? Bow and arrow? That's hardcore!

She said "hunt or to use firearms", not "hunt using firearms".

Or she could be like me: Nikon.

I think concealed carry should also be illegal, along with open carry. All firearms should be registered and gun ownership should require certification of firearm safety courses.

I agree with registration and licensing. I think banning all carry is going too far though.

In the real world CCW permits have a very low rate of misdeeds. I consider them basically a non-issue.

 

[EricH]

And I have, in the same post, acknowledged that a rifle has advantages of power and effective range.

Rifles shoot bullets at anywhere from 2,500 to 3,500 fps typically. A far cry from handguns which fire bullets at anywhere from 800 to 1,200 fps typically. The same projectile fired from a rifle or even a short-barreled carbine will have much more energy than that fired from a 4 or 5 inch pistol barrel. The energy of the bullet is directly proportional to the mass of the projectile and to the square of its velocity, so muzzle velocity (and barrel length) have a much larger effect on the destructive power of the bullet than its mass.

And yet by far the most homicides are committed using handguns. Rifles are used less frequently than knives, blunt objects and even "personal weapons" for that purpose, according to the FBI.

I am all for banning all guns in the hands of civilians, except those who demonstrate a specific need to possess a weapon. Banning AR15s and guns similar to the AR15 is good first step.

I did not say that there was nothing exceptional about rifles like AR15. They are obviously fine firearms. But they are not "military style", they are civilian. Military assault rifles have selective fire. Note also that many firearms started out in military use, even handguns like the Colt M1911 semiautomatic or the M1917 revolver.

I have to disagree with you here. I don't know your background - former military or law enforcement perhaps, and your familiarity with these guns, but I can tell you about my perspective. What did you carry as part of your job (I bet it wasn't a Mini 14)? I carried a M16A1 rifle and a 1911 sidearm during my service in the Corps and in battle in Vietnam. My wife and my daughter are/were both competitive shooters shooting rifles, pistols and shotguns, and I have picked up a lot of information talking to them and attending matches with them. The modern AR15 is functionally identical to the M16A1 I carried in battle. It is much more ergonomic when set up with compensators, grips, modified receivers and stocks, but it is the same gun shooting the same ammo. The rifle I carried in combat had an automatic fire mode that was rarely used by us Marines because of limited magazine capacity and our unwillingness to carry a lot of spare magazines (we much preferred the use of light machine guns and would gladly hump all day with extra ammo belts because of how effective these were at getting us out of trouble, along with grenades, in contrast to our rifles). Heck, you can even buy a civilian replica of the A1 and A2 generations that look and work exactly like the rifles we carried with the exception of the full auto sear. I also have a lot of experience hunting with an army surplus WWII M1 Carbine and it was nothing like the M16 I carried.

Any rifle firing a similar cartridge will have similar ballistic properties and will cause similar injuries, like this bone fracture. It doesn't matter whether it is an AR15, a Ruger Mini 14 or a .223 Remington.

My daughter has 17 or 18 long guns. I will ask for her advice and get back to you on her opinion. How much experience do you have carrying and shooting these weapons? What kind of drills do you run with these rifles? A Mini 14 is a great rifle, and is ballistically similar to the AR15, but there are big differences in how they handle in the arms and are used in the field.

The Left loves to waste political capital on trying to ban so-called "assault weapons" with appeals to emotion even though they are used in a small minority of homicides. I think the reason the Left is so obsessed with these weapons is that the user base skews white and conservative. Urban thugs, like the 12 and 13 year old carjackers nabbed in Seattle yesterday, prefer handguns.

How many lives have been taken by AR15 type rifles? How many lives did the Las Vegas shooter take with his AR15s? How can you say that banning the sale and possession of AR15s will have no consequence in the big picture? Every life matters.

Also, the caption says the right X-ray shows a tibia hit by a "low-energy bullet". I would not exactly call a 9x19mm Parabellum (481-729 J) "low energy". I wonder if the wound was sustained by a .25 ACP (85-89 J) or a .22 short (60-118 J) instead.

Would you rather be shot by a 9mm Luger or a 5.56 fired by a AR15 long gun? Yeah, that was a rhetorical question.

All guns are bad. But some guns are far, far worse than others. To argue against the banning of AR15 style guns is counterproductive to the bigger discussion, especially considering the political climate in the US.

 

[Elixir]

I don't know your background - former military or law enforcement perhaps, and your familiarity with these guns, but I can tell you about my perspective.

Let me fill you in a tiny bit.
Derec opposes attacks on AR15s, and has only recently been learning about the differences in the wound patterns produced by high speed bullets. He went into this discussion thinking .223 rifles were the same thing (or almost the same) as .22 rifles. Having been disabused of that mistaken belief, he has kept up his opposition to singling out high velocity weapons/ammo, under the rationale that more people are killed with handguns.
I’m not sure but seem to recall him saying he has never ever shot an AR or similar, so his expertise is not acquired first hand.
So far Derec has been impervious AFAIK (I don’t read much of his stuff any more) to any argument that would distinguish .223 weapons designed for human killing, from varmint (or any other) guns.
As a doc, have you ever had to treat an AR15 or AK47 wound? May you could ‘splain it to him. I can only recount the experiences of combat medics and ER docs I have dealt with..

 

[Derec]

And I have, in the same post, acknowledged that a rifle has advantages of power and effective range.

Rifles shoot bullets at anywhere from 2,500 to 3,500 fps typically. A far cry from handguns which fire bullets at anywhere from 800 to 1,200 fps typically. The same projectile fired from a rifle or even a short-barreled carbine will have much more energy than that fired from a 4 or 5 inch pistol barrel. The energy of the bullet is directly proportional to the mass of the projectile and to the square of its velocity, so muzzle velocity (and barrel length) have a much larger effect on the destructive power of the bullet than its mass.

What's the point of that dissertation when you just end up agreeing with what I wrote: "a rifle has advantages of power and effective range". And that goes for all rifles that fire a similar cartridge with a similar barrel length, whether they are classified as "assault weapons" or not.

I am all for banning all guns in the hands of civilians, except those who demonstrate a specific need to possess a weapon. Banning AR15s and guns similar to the AR15 is good first step.

Would it be though? It would be a significant imposition of lawful gun owners while doing precious little to curb gun violence. It would expand a lot of political capital for very little return. Political capital that could be better used elsewhere.

I have to disagree with you here. I don't know your background - former military or law enforcement perhaps, and your familiarity with these guns, but I can tell you about my perspective.

It's not a matter of opinion, but a fact - many firearms in common-use were developed for the military. So what do you disagree with exactly?
And no, I am neither.

The modern AR15 is functionally identical to the M16A1 I carried in battle.

Except for the crucial difference that the AR15 is not capable of selective fire. It's a semiautomatic rifle, not an assault rifle like the M16A1.

It is much more ergonomic when set up with compens ators, grips, modified receivers and stocks, but it is the same gun shooting the same ammo.

So is the Ruger Mini 14. And while a Remington .223 is bolt action, it shoots the same ammo.

The rifle I carried in combat had an automatic fire mode that was rarely used by us Marines

Rarely != never.

A Mini 14 is a great rifle, and is ballistically similar to the AR15, but there are big differences in how they handle in the arms and are used in the field.

We are not talking about combat "in the field" here. We are talking about criminal acts by civilians.

How many lives have been taken by AR15 type rifles?

Some. Far less than handguns. Less than "hands, fists and feet, etc." even. See here. And note that this FBI data is for rifles of all types.

How many lives did the Las Vegas shooter take with his AR15s?

A bunch. That is pretty much the only scenario where a rifle, rather than a handgun, offers a real advantage over a handgun because of the range. Note that a) this shooting was 7 years ago now and b) he used a now banned "bump stock" to effectively make his rifle into an automatic one. Similar devices exist for handguns too, btw. Ever heard of a "Glock switch"?

How can you say that banning the sale and possession of AR15s will have no consequence in the big picture?

Yes. It would have little to no consequence. The few homicides we have committed with AR15s could have been done with other weapons - handguns mostly, or other rifles. Columbine happened during the so-called "assault weapon ban". Virginia Tech shooter used a couple of handguns, even though he could have bought an AR15.

Every life matters.

"If one life can be saved" is almost always a prelude to intrudier and excessive regulation. Might as well lower highway speed limit to 25 or raise the drinking age to 40. "Every life matters"? Right?

Also, the caption says the right X-ray shows a tibia hit by a "low-energy bullet". I would not exactly call a 9x19mm Parabellum (481-729 J) "low energy". I wonder if the wound was sustained by a .25 ACP (85-89 J) or a .22 short (60-118 J) instead.

Would you rather be shot by a 9mm Luger or a 5.56 fired by a AR15 long gun? Yeah, that was a rhetorical question.

It may be a rhetorical question, but it is also not responsive to what I wrote. I was taking about the picture is identifying the right-hand x-ray as produced by a "low-energy bullet" without identifying the caliber. I was merely pointing out that common handgun rounds like the 9mm are not "low-energy" - .25 ACP and .22 short would be. Therefore I think that picture is misleading.

As to answering your question, the point is not which I would rather get shot by. The question is, which I am more likely to get shot with. Yes, the round from an AR15 (or .223 Remington for that) would be more damaging. But the round from a 9mm handgun is plenty destructive too, and those are far more likely to use to shoot people.

All guns are bad. But some guns are far, far worse than others. To argue against the banning of AR15 style guns is counterproductive to the bigger discussion, especially considering the political climate in the US.

I think it's the other way around. To obsess about banning so-called "assault weapons" when that would have little to no positive effect is what is counterproductive.
What we need to focus is on people pulling the trigger, not on the particulars of the gun.
In IT, there is an acronym "PEBKAC" (problem exists between keyboard and chair) meaning the human user. Guns are similar. The problem exists between shoes and trigger.
To call gun criminals "prince" or put their names on NFL helmets is what is counterproductive. To say that they should not face long prison sentences for killing people (including innocent bystanders ) because they were just under 18 is counterproductive. To say that police should not conduct traffic stops because they sometimes uncover warrants for gun crime is counterproductive.

 

[Derec]

Let me fill you in a tiny bit.

"Fill him in" with a metric buttload of BS.

Derec opposes attacks on AR15s, and has only recently been learning about the differences in the wound patterns produced by high speed bullets.

BS.

He went into this discussion thinking .223 rifles were the same thing (or almost the same) as .22 rifles.

More BS. Swammy misinterpreted what I wrote, and you keep harping on it years after I clarified what I meant. My point is that a bullet with the same size, same powder charge and shot from a rifle with the same barrel length will have the same ballistic properties whether it is a scary black metal "assault rifle" or a friendly rifle with cherry wood stock.

Having been disabused of that mistaken belief, he has kept up his opposition to singling out high velocity weapons/ammo, under the rationale that more people are killed with handguns.

Far more, yes. More people are killed using "personal weapons" than with rifles of any type. And note that the so-called "assault weapons ban" was not based on the bullet velocity or ammo type but mostly on superficial features.

I’m not sure but seem to recall him saying he has never ever shot an AR or similar, so his expertise is not acquired first hand.

I have shot an AR15. At a gun range. I have never owned one, however.

So far Derec has been impervious AFAIK (I don’t read much of his stuff any more) to any argument that would distinguish .223 weapons designed for human killing, from varmint (or any other) guns.

I understand the distinctions. Do you? Especially the difference in homicide numbers between handguns and rifles (of all types, of which so-called "assault weapons" are but a proper subset).

As a doc, have you ever had to treat an AR15 or AK47 wound? May you could ‘splain it to him. I can only recount the experiences of combat medics and ER docs I have dealt with..

The wound would not be different than one made by a .223 Remington or a .3030 Winchester, respectively.
And the type of wound is only one part of the picture. The number of wounds is also important. Far more holes in humans in the US are made with 9x19 than with 5.56x45 or 7.62x39.

But please continue to pile it higher and deeper. One of these days you will be awarded that PhD in BS.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't know your background - former military or law enforcement perhaps, and your familiarity with these guns, but I can tell you about my perspective.

Let me fill you in a tiny bit.
Derec opposes attacks on AR15s, and has only recently been learning about the differences in the wound patterns produced by high speed bullets. He went into this discussion thinking .223 rifles were the same thing (or almost the same) as .22 rifles. Having been disabused of that mistaken belief, he has kept up his opposition to singling out high velocity weapons/ammo, under the rationale that more people are killed with handguns.
I’m not sure but seem to recall him saying he has never ever shot an AR or similar, so his expertise is not acquired first hand.
So far Derec has been impervious AFAIK (I don’t read much of his stuff any more) to any argument that would distinguish .223 weapons designed for human killing, from varmint (or any other) guns.
As a doc, have you ever had to treat an AR15 or AK47 wound? May you could ‘splain it to him. I can only recount the experiences of combat medics and ER docs I have dealt with..

So, I am also a former service member with lots of experience in handling weapons.

One thing that Eric failed to mention is the charge of a weapon's ammunition.

Not only does the barrel contribute to higher muzzle velocity, but there's maybe 6-10 times as much powder behind a .223 compared to a .22lr.

While I've thankfully never needed or needed to give others treatment for such wounds, they are pretty infamous for the fact that the supersonic velocity of a .223 not only does damage by making a hole and a track, but that the sonic shock of the bullet passing through causes horizontal shockwaves, too, as it slows, shockwaves that are themselves supersonic at first, causing the wound itself to be much messier even before the round starts tumbling, which it almost always does, and has enough energy to STILL create an exit wound much of the time... A gaping, messy affair usually much larger than the entry point.

Most people could probably laugh off being shot by a .22, even a .22lr. Getting shot even once by a .223 in center mass, though, is basically a death sentence.

 

[Elixir]

. Getting shot even once by a .223 in center mass, though, is basically a death sentence.

]
There have been plenty of fatalities from .223 leg wounds - they tear up the femoral artery and the Pt bleeds out.

 

[Jarhyn]

. Getting shot even once by a .223 in center mass, though, is basically a death sentence.

]
There have been plenty of fatalities from .223 leg wounds - they tear up the femoral artery and the Pt bleeds out.

Yeah, it's less of a death sentence though to get shot in the leg. It's a big target, true, but people at least have a chance getting a hole blown out the back of their leg. It's the difference between a smallish part could be missed, and a sack of parts that must be missed.

 

[Tigers!]

Even dangerous juveniles are still juveniles. Putting them with dangerous adults is inhumane and just plain nuts.

The collory is that dangerous juveniles are still dangerous.

So putting them in with dangerous adults is just and proper?
Sounds dangerous to me.

No, just reminding that being a juvenile does not guarantee that said person will not be dangerous. The age is less important than what they may have done. A 13 year old can still kill.

 

[laughing dog]

Even dangerous juveniles are still juveniles. Putting them with dangerous adults is inhumane and just plain nuts.

The collory is that dangerous juveniles are still dangerous.

So putting them in with dangerous adults is just and proper?
Sounds dangerous to me.

No, just reminding that being a juvenile does not guarantee that said person will not be dangerous. The age is less important than what they may have done. A 13 year old can still kill.

As long as we are making helpful reminders, reminders that dangerous juveniles have nothing to do with putting them in with dangerous adults.

 

[Elixir]

being a juvenile does not guarantee that said person will not be dangerous

A juvenile sent to adult prison is already dangerous. Prison is like Dangerous University. Iif they survive, they will have a PhD in Dangerous, and be much more dangerous.

The rationale for not putting them in with the adult population are premised largely on the notion that they are more malleable than adults. IMO it’s kind of intractable because when you put a bunch of criminal punks together, it does create a bit of a Lord of the Flies situation. At least the hardened criminals might be able to control them?

To rehab them takes dedicated, talented people to spend time with them individually, not just a Parole Officer looming over them to constrain them. They’re animals. The best way to discourage certain behaviors is to distract them with something else; take them on a hike, put them in a shared life and death situation or two, etc.
There are programs that are like that, but they’re just programs and then they’re over. And if course their behavior usually reverts.

 

[ZiprHead]

I don't know your background - former military or law enforcement perhaps, and your familiarity with these guns, but I can tell you about my perspective.

Let me fill you in a tiny bit.
Derec opposes attacks on AR15s, and has only recently been learning about the differences in the wound patterns produced by high speed bullets. He went into this discussion thinking .223 rifles were the same thing (or almost the same) as .22 rifles. Having been disabused of that mistaken belief, he has kept up his opposition to singling out high velocity weapons/ammo, under the rationale that more people are killed with handguns.
I’m not sure but seem to recall him saying he has never ever shot an AR or similar, so his expertise is not acquired first hand.
So far Derec has been impervious AFAIK (I don’t read much of his stuff any more) to any argument that would distinguish .223 weapons designed for human killing, from varmint (or any other) guns.
As a doc, have you ever had to treat an AR15 or AK47 wound? May you could ‘splain it to him. I can only recount the experiences of combat medics and ER docs I have dealt with..

I don't know if Eric has such experience but here is an article that talks about it.:

Wounds From Military-Style Rifles? ‘A Ghastly Thing to See’ (Published 2018)

Trauma surgeons tell what it is really like to try to repair such devastating injuries. “Bones are exploded, soft tissue is absolutely destroyed,” one said.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Swammerdami]

A recent news story has nothing to do with mass shooting, but may still be interesting. A few incidents like this and Americans may finally learn that most humans do not have the perverse love of guns we see in America.

(On another message board, one poster bitterly ranted that he'd never be able to achieve his dream of visiting Europe! He wouldn't be able to bring along his best friend and constant companion -- a handgun. Another poster thought it unfair he couldn't drive with his gun from Oregon to Alaska.)

Ryan Watson of Oklahoma was in the Turks and Caicos Islands for a special celebration with his wife and several friends. But he was detained when attempting to return to the U.S.: Four bullets were found in his luggage. Very unpleasant and disruptive for the Watson family even if he is eventually released without prosecution. (Of course they'll get a million bucks or thereabouts from GoFundMe etc. to help ease their pain.)

The bullets were useless of course without a gun, and just left in the luggage accidentally from some hunting trip. But they are illegal in Turks & Caicos Islands, with the possible penalty a "mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years." Another American, Bryan Hagerich, was arrested in February on similar charges and is also still detained awaiting trial.

Turks & Caicos has an unusual political status. Formerly governed from Jamaica and later the Bahamas, when those countries became independent, Turks & Caicos became a British Crown Colony with an independent government. It has a population of 50,000 and, like many tiny countries, has become a "financial center." Although King Charles III is their constitutional monarch, their national currency is the U.S. Dollar.

Of course it seems ridiculous that Ryan Watson may suffer greatly just for forgetting 4 bullets in his duffel bag. But I'm happy to see Americans bludgeoned if it helps them get through their thick heads what perversion America's national gun fetish is.

But alas, I'm a hypocrite: I once set myself up for a similar problem but luck was on my side. Once in Singapore I noticed a morsel of hashish in my shaving kit! I'd picked it up months earlier in Nepal and forgotten about it. (Singapore had severe penalties for even small quantities of cannabis. I don't remember whether I smoked the evidence or just flushed it down the toilet.)

 

[Derec]

A juvenile sent to adult prison is already dangerous. Prison is like Dangerous University. Iif they survive, they will have a PhD in Dangerous, and be much more dangerous.

A teenage killer, especially one who was working as a gang enforcer, is already very dangerous. Why should he put in juvenile detention with other minors and with guards who are not trained or equipped to deal with somebody like him?
As to them getting out, I do not think parole should be automatic for people like that. They should really demonstrate they have reformed before ever being unleashed into society.

The rationale for not putting them in with the adult population are premised largely on the notion that they are more malleable than adults.

Is a 16 or 17 year old killer really more malleable than an 18 or 19 year old robber who did not kill anybody? Certainly the nature of offense should matter as well, not just the calendar age. And it's not like human development is a binary switch - a child at 17 years and 364 days, adult one day later. No, human development is a continuum. Legal cutoffs are there for convenience that only approximate reality. There needs to be flexibility - and charging teenagers under 18 as adults for heinous crimes is a form of flexibility.

To rehab them takes dedicated, talented people to spend time with them individually, not just a Parole Officer looming over them to constrain them. They’re animals. The best way to discourage certain behaviors is to distract them with something else; take them on a hike, put them in a shared life and death situation or two, etc.

You think a 17 year old murderer should be taken on outings to to a local hiking trail? WTF?

There are programs that are like that, but they’re just programs and then they’re over. And if course their behavior usually reverts.

What do you suggest?

 

[Derec]

I don't know if Eric has such experience but here is an article that talks about it.:

Wounds From Military-Style Rifles? ‘A Ghastly Thing to See’ (Published 2018)

Trauma surgeons tell what it is really like to try to repair such devastating injuries. “Bones are exploded, soft tissue is absolutely destroyed,” one said.

www.nytimes.com

Yeah, that's the article with the x-ray comparison image I was talking about. The right-hand x-ray is identified as coming from a "low energy" bullet. So not a 9mm but more likely something like a .22 short or .25 ACP which have much lower bullet energy than the 9x19 Parabellum.

I understand that 5.56x45 (.223) and 7.62x39 (30-30) rifle rounds are much more powerful than handgun rounds. But so-called "assault weapons" are not the only rifles shooting those. In fact, "assault weapon" designation is not defined by bullet power, which makes the whole article quite misleading.

Not to mention the fact that I keep repeating over and over - being hit by 5.56x45 is far more devastating, especially at short range, but you are far more likely to be shot with a 9mm. It's a plane crash vs. car crash type of thing.

 

[Derec]

No, just reminding that being a juvenile does not guarantee that said person will not be dangerous. The age is less important than what they may have done. A 13 year old can still kill.

A few decades ago there was a case in Chicago where an 11 year old killer (real life Kenard, iykyk) was taken by a two 14-16 year old brothers from the same gang because the gang feared that the preteen would talk. Both of the killers have been since released - but at least they both served some real time in real prison.
11-year-old ‘Yummy’ Sandifer was on the run for killing a teenage girl. Then he was killed by his own gang in a Chicago story that shocked the nation 25 years ago.
While this particular story is extreme, it shows that gangs like to recruit their enforcers young, and also that a few years in juvi is completely inadequate penalty for premeditated murder. Unfortunately, were this to happen today, Kim Foxxx would most likely have tried the Hardaway brothers as juveniles.

And as a note about the other part of the discussion, both Shavon Dean and Yummi Sandifer himself were killed with handguns, not AR15s.

 

[ZiprHead]

I understand that 5.56x45 (.223) and 7.62x39 (30-30) rifle rounds are much more powerful than handgun rounds. But so-called "assault weapons" are not the only rifles shooting those. In fact, "assault weapon" designation is not defined by bullet power, which makes the whole article quite misleading.

Nobody uses a deer rifle to kill school kids. Try again.

 

[ZiprHead]

While this particular story is extreme, it shows that gangs like to recruit their enforcers young, and also that a few years in juvi is completely inadequate penalty for premeditated murder.

You base this conclusion on one case???

 

[Tigers!]

being a juvenile does not guarantee that said person will not be dangerous

A juvenile sent to adult prison is already dangerous. Prison is like Dangerous University. Iif they survive, they will have a PhD in Dangerous, and be much more dangerous.

The rationale for not putting them in with the adult population are premised largely on the notion that they are more malleable than adults. IMO it’s kind of intractable because when you put a bunch of criminal punks together, it does create a bit of a Lord of the Flies situation. At least the hardened criminals might be able to control them?

To rehab them takes dedicated, talented people to spend time with them individually, not just a Parole Officer looming over them to constrain them. They’re animals. The best way to discourage certain behaviors is to distract them with something else; take them on a hike, put them in a shared life and death situation or two, etc.
There are programs that are like that, but they’re just programs and then they’re over. And if course their behavior usually reverts.

I do not recall suggesting that they be locked up with adults. Posters have assumed that. They are considered dangerous and so must be separated from the community at large for a time.
My father spent > 25 years working in the prisons in Victoria with Prison Fellowship trying to help men who had spent the majority of their lives in goal. His role was to help prepare them for life outside.
Prisons in Australia are too often too 'finishing schools' for juvenile offenders. That nexus needs to be broken. But releasing (dangerous) juvenile offenders back into the community is not going to work either.