What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings?

[Revoltingest]

Go find a nice soft place to sit before continuing.



Well some times we have to educate our English cousins about real life as it pertains to us on the other side of the pond. However, I'm sure that there are those on this forum and out there in the world that would think that the police could purchase off-the-shelf ammunition or reload their own. I figured that you might be one, hence the explanation.. But, the police do use the same type of ammunition that is available to civilians.


Who ever said war was a humanitarian evolution. Do you know why the U.S. switched from the .38 caliber ammuntion to the 45acp? It sure wasn't because they wanted to be humanitarians.


The reason that one should not use "reload" for self-defense is not a ballistic factor but the having to deal with the lawyer factor. Oh just one little point that disputes a statement you made in responding to @Revoltingest in regards to why use expandable bullets....hollow points.
From your above link



What is your point in the above.
Do you really think that the US military does not use "expandable" rounds.
Sorry don't need any lessons from our English cousins when it comes to firearms.
But I must admit that you do build fine firearms, for example James Purdy & Sons.

I'll add to this that over the last century, the military has taken
steps to make rounds deadlier, despite eschewing hollow points....
- Increasing velocity allows expansion of even ball ammo.
- Increasing velocity creates large temporary expanded wound cavities, enhancing vascular & nerve damage.
- Select fire allows putting more rounds into the enemy.

Btw, they've stopped using bacon grease with bullets.
But this was the result of a technological change, rather
than catering to the wants of Muslim & Jewish foes.

 

[oldbadger]

There is a difference between these 2 situations....
1) That which is practical & ethical in the real world.
2) The fantasy world portrayed by a prosecutorial goon to a jury of half wits.

That's what an effective defender is for.
Defenders don't get people off, more often they show innocence and reason.

I get the sense that attempts at discussion are failing.
It's like arguing with a billboard...again.

Ahhh.......... you never got round to the 'shootings are the price of our freedom' stuff. I was looking forward to that.

Never mind. No doubt this gun thing will arise again, probably next week.

 

[oldbadger]

Go find a nice soft place to sit before continuing.

Ummmm..... OK...... I'm comfy. Go for it.

Well some times we have to educate our English cousins about real life as it pertains to us on the other side of the pond. However, I'm sure that there are those on this forum and out there in the world that would think that the police could purchase off-the-shelf ammunition or reload their own. I figured that you might be one, hence the explanation.. But, the police do use the same type of ammunition that is available to civilians.

Police Offers wanted!
Uniform and cannon provided, but bring your own cannon balls.

Who ever said war was a humanitarian evolution. Do you know why the U.S. switched from the .38 caliber ammuntion to the 45acp? It sure wasn't because they wanted to be humanitarians.

That's all OK, so long as you don't go moaning about what the nasty enemy did to your soldiers and civilians. It's a kind of schizophrenia when folks cheer when the enemy gets frazzled, but shriek in offended shock when, for instance, the suicides and berserkers race in against their own.
The Geneva Convention offered some degree of compassion during and after combat, and its tenets are not a bad guide towards reason.

The reason that one should not use "reload" for self-defense is not a ballistic factor but the having to deal with the lawyer factor. Oh just one little point that disputes a statement you made in responding toRevoltingest in regards to why use expandable bullets....hollow points.

@Revoltingest was offered the use of a blunderbuss FGS, loaded with rock salt so the the local surgeons would not be interrupted in their weekend worries about how to spend all of their money, a very real concern for them...... and it lead to this.
A real troublemaker, that Michiganistanian.

What is your point in the above.
Do you really think that the US military does not use "expandable" rounds.

Sure...... you lot never signed the GC!

Sorry don't need any lessons from our English cousins when it comes to firearms.

Yeah, right........ most of your tech comes from Israel, Belgium, Germany...... and us!
Without us you'd still be b**gering about with slings, and even they came from Israel.

But I must admit that you do build fine firearms, for example James Purdy & Sons.

A snotty lot, and they'd snort if you called their guns firearms.
And don't forget Greener, Greenfields, AtkinGrant&Lang, Churchill, Cogswell&Harrison, Ratcliffes, Smiths, Holland & Holland, blah blah

 

[Underhill]

I read the above statement and then disregarded it due to 5 words which were "an arsenal of automatic weapons" put you, IMO, in the category of the "no nothings". Hence anything you bring forward is, in my opinion, based on your lack of knowledge on the subject just because of those 5 words.

You think arsenals don't exist or just dislike the term? I have co-workers who own more weapons than most small to mid-sized police forces. So don't pretend it isn't a valid term. Simply the fact that a small percentage of people own half the guns in the country is evidence of my accuracy.

This is just the kind of nonsense the NRA types get hung up over. "we're willing to talk about reform" essentially means, 'we are willing to talk so long as you you don't offend our delicate sensibilities or suggest anything that might inconvenience me in any way whatsoever.'

 

[esmith]

He was talking about American freedom from a foreign power, not the minutia of gun rights. Giving up your AK isn't making you less safe. Saying someone has to use a shotgun to protect their family instead of an arsenal of automatic weapons simply means they have less toys to play with.

I read the above statement and then disregarded it due to 5 words which were "an arsenal of automatic weapons" put you, IMO, in the category of the "no nothings". Hence anything you bring forward is, in my opinion, based on your lack of knowledge on the subject just because of those 5 words.

You think arsenals don't exist or just dislike the term? I have co-workers who own more weapons than most small to mid-sized police forces. So don't pretend it isn't a valid term. Simply the fact that a small percentage of people own half the guns in the country is evidence of my accuracy.
This is just the kind of nonsense the NRA types get hung up over. "we're willing to talk about reform" essentially means, 'we are willing to talk so long as you you don't offend our delicate sensibilities or suggest anything that might inconvenience me in any way whatsoever.'

Let's examine what you said (I have edited to only focus on the one statement that caused me to say what I did). It is highlighted in Red.

When I read or listen to anyone I base the value of what that person is saying or writing on my perceived view of that persons knowledge of the subject. In your case I have come to the conclusion that you know very little about the subject for the following reason.
It is illegal for any civilian to own a automatic weapon without extensive legal paperwork and the extremely high cost of obtaining a automatic weapon. I seriously doubt the average firearm owner could afford an arsenal of automatic weapons, only the very rich could come close to owning an arsenal of automatic weapons.

It addition your additional comment "play with", is typical of those of your ilk. We do not play with our firearms. Play is something that some do with the male appendage that those of your ilk seem to ascribe to when you try and demean those of us that enjoy owning and using firearms.

 

[Underhill]

Let's examine what you said (I have edited to only focus on the one statement that caused me to say what I did). It is highlighted in Red.

When I read or listen to anyone I base the value of what that person is saying or writing on my perceived view of that persons knowledge of the subject. In your case I have come to the conclusion that you know very little about the subject for the following reason.
It is illegal for any civilian to own a automatic weapon without extensive legal paperwork and the extremely high cost of obtaining a automatic weapon. I seriously doubt the average firearm owner could afford an arsenal of automatic weapons, only the very rich could come close to owning an arsenal of automatic weapons.

It addition your additional comment "play with", is typical of those of your ilk. We do not play with our firearms. Play is something that some do with the male appendage that those of your ilk seem to ascribe to when you try and demean those of us that enjoy owning and using firearms.

First, yes, there are those who own an arsenal. All your post does is point out how rare it is. On that point, you would be correct. But many people have arsenals consisting of AR-15's of the kind the Vegas shooter used a bump stock on.

Second, nonsense. The number one use of firearms in this country is glorified play. Most hunting, target shooting and trap are all forms of play. Even gun collectors are engaging in a hobby they enjoy. The alternative is those who use them for work. Which consist of police, agents and armed guards (along with a few hunters who still do it for food rather than a trophy or for fun). I doubt anyone out there would believe they are the majority of gun owners.

 

[esmith]

First, yes, there are those who own an arsenal. All your post does is point out how rare it is. On that point, you would be correct. But many people have arsenals consisting of AR-15's of the kind the Vegas shooter used a bump stock on.

I don't care how you try to spin it. You said arsenal of automatic weapons and that is next to impossible unless you are very rich. Of course I suspect maybe you think an arsenal is two or more..

Second, nonsense. The number one use of firearms in this country is glorified play. Most hunting, target shooting and trap are all forms of play. Even gun collectors are engaging in a hobby they enjoy. The alternative is those who use them for work. Which consist of police, agents and armed guards (along with a few hunters who still do it for food rather than a trophy or for fun). I doubt anyone out there would believe they are the majority of gun owners.

I consider my use of firearms as continued training in self-defense and a hobby. So according to my Funk & Wagnalls I am engaged in play at some times, but not other.

 

[Underhill]

I don't care how you try to spin it. You said arsenal of automatic weapons and that is next to impossible unless you are very rich. Of course I suspect maybe you think an arsenal is two or more..

I know of one person whom I work with who owns 4 AR's (two of which have bump stocks), a dozen or more shotguns, 9 pistols (last I knew) and dozens of other long guns. They may not be automatic weapons, but only a moron would argue about the term arsenal. Perhaps I exaggerated on the term 'automatic', but my point stands. You cannot logically make the argument that this number of guns is useful for anything other than collecting or play. Even if one hunts and uses one or two for self defense, what of the other 30 guns?

I consider my use of firearms as continued training in self-defense and a hobby. So according to my Funk & Wagnalls I am engaged in play at some times, but not other.

You may consider it that way, but realistically most people own guns because they enjoy them, not out of some need. This idea that if we passed some kinds of limits, their lives would be drastically impacted is silly.

 

[esmith]

I know of one person whom I work with who owns 4 AR's (two of which have bump stocks), a dozen or more shotguns, 9 pistols (last I knew) and dozens of other long guns. They may not be automatic weapons, but only a moron would argue about the term arsenal. Perhaps I exaggerated on the term 'automatic', but my point stands. You cannot logically make the argument that this number of guns is useful for anything other than collecting or play. Even if one hunts and uses one or two for self defense, what of the other 30 guns?

What business is it of yours if a person legally owns as many firearms as they want. Are you the local nanny?

You may consider it that way, but realistically most people own guns because they enjoy them, not out of some need. This idea that if we passed some kinds of limits, their lives would be drastically impacted is silly.

And again what business is it of yours how many someone owns. How about you worry about yourself and forgo your objections to those of us that are responsible gun owners. And your last statement is why we don't want your type of politicians in government.

 

[Underhill]

What business is it of yours if a person legally owns as many firearms as they want. Are you the local nanny?

What business is it that a person can own as many AR-15's and bump stocks as they like? You don't think it's worth noting if for no other reason than the potential for theft?

My grandfather owned a gun shop and was forced to meet all kinds of security regulations. But a man can own many dozens of guns with no registration, no security and all under the name of freedom. But there is also a mental health issue which republicans love to talk about but never want to address. It doesn't strike anyone else that if a man is hording weapons in the name of 'security' that perhaps he is the security threat? And last, it is a discussion about guns and gun laws. How many guns people own is obviously relevant to the discussion if for that reason alone.

And again what business is it of yours how many someone owns. How about you worry about yourself and forgo your objections to those of us that are responsible gun owners. And your last statement is why we don't want your type of politicians in government.

I own guns, I am not objecting to responsible gun owners. I am objecting because right now, there is nothing saying you have to be responsible. You could be a paranoid narcissist with anger issues and own an arsenal of legal guns, just like the Vegas shooter. You could store them on your porch or sell them (privately) to a criminal and none would be the wiser.

But keep pretending I am the enemy. I suspect the result will be the same either way.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What business is it of yours if a person legally owns as many firearms as they want. Are you the local nanny?





And again what business is it of yours how many someone owns. How about you worry about yourself and forgo your objections to those of us that are responsible gun owners. And your last statement is why we don't want your type of politicians in government.

There's something very much missing from this post, and I can't quite put my finger on what it is...


Oh, right! An argument.

 

[Revoltingest]

There's something very much missing from this post, and I can't quite put my finger on what it is...

Oh, right! An argument.

They're questions.

 

[esmith]

What business is it that a person can own as many AR-15's and bump stocks as they like? You don't think it's worth noting if for no other reason than the potential for theft?

My grandfather owned a gun shop and was forced to meet all kinds of security regulations. But a man can own many dozens of guns with no registration, no security and all under the name of freedom. But there is also a mental health issue which republicans love to talk about but never want to address. It doesn't strike anyone else that if a man is hording weapons in the name of 'security' that perhaps he is the security threat? And last, it is a discussion about guns and gun laws. How many guns people own is obviously relevant to the discussion if for that reason alone.




I own guns, I am not objecting to responsible gun owners. I am objecting because right now, there is nothing saying you have to be responsible. You could be a paranoid narcissist with anger issues and own an arsenal of legal guns, just like the Vegas shooter. You could store them on your porch or sell them (privately) to a criminal and none would be the wiser.

But keep pretending I am the enemy. I suspect the result will be the same either way.

We are on opposite sides of this and neither of us is going to change the attitude of the other, so I see no more use in continuing.

 

[tytlyf]

What business is it of yours if a person legally owns as many firearms as they want. Are you the local nanny?

As Americans, it's our business because there's a lot of legal irresponsible gun owners out there. The more guns they buy, the more chance they'll end up in the wrong hands. Gun violence in America is a serious problem, more weapons purchased means more guns available to criminals.

 

[Underhill]

They're questions.

Agreed! Silly questions but yes, they are questions.

 

[Revoltingest]

Agreed! Silly questions but yes, they are questions.

Unanswered questions though.

 

[esmith]

As Americans, it's our business because there's a lot of legal irresponsible gun owners out there. The more guns they buy, the more chance they'll end up in the wrong hands. Gun violence in America is a serious problem, more weapons purchased means more guns available to criminals.

So, if that is what you think and you think it's your business, what do you purpose that needs to be done? Be specific, write your law, vice the palaver

 

[Underhill]

Unanswered questions though.

I answered them thoroughly.

 

[Revoltingest]

I answered them thoroughly.

Then I missed that.
It happens.

 

[esmith]

To all of you wanting to expand background checks......
FBI database for gun buyers missing millions of records