Mass Shootings in America

[Turdacious]

Although the ‘don’t prop the exit only doors with a rock because you want to make it easier to take a smoke break’ training for employees could be improved.

[Bram]

One problem with gun control vs 2A discussions is people often use too many terms interchangeably. Definitions are important.

The FBI tracks Active Shooter or Active Killing events - not mass shootings.
Data for 2021 is https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/act ... 2.pdf/view
The FBI defines an active shooter as "one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area."

Great link!

I appreciate you sharing something that pertains exactly to the issue I started this thread for -- the people who open fire on churches, schools, supermarkets, concerts, movies, and so on. People who are heavily armed and mentally unwell.

I admit that I thought the incident rate was much, much higher than it actually is.

And I understand why people are reluctant to initiate gun reform, when the numbers for this type of violence aren't that high.

What rules would you all feel comfortable with that would restrict gun access to the mentally unwell? Are you okay with red flag laws, background checks, licensing hurdles, anything?

A separate issue becomes what rules would people feel comfortable with that would restrict gun access to perpetrators of gang violence?

[Bram]

I do hope that it was him. Sounds to me like a great way to jack someone up is to put such "threats" onto someone else's Instagram account, yes?

Was a Red Flag necessary? Sounds to me like Junior needed some quality time with a Mental Health professional.

Gene here's a couple links. Evidently 55 different people reported him.

https://www.q13fox.com/news/felony-char ... ne-threats

https://www.yahoo.com/news/juanita-high ... 18465.html

And this bit fits the narcissism mold that school shooters often have:

Levin told investigators that he had been bullied as people attempted to damage his “reputation and vast popularity,” according to probable cause documents.

[j-cubed]

Yeah, good point, I am sure it wigs kids out to have to do them. I remember our duck and cover drills in elementary school, the rooms to go to for fallout shelters, etc. It looms.

But the drills worked in Uvalde and in other shootings. While the one room was turned into a charnel house for children, the kids and teachers in other rooms did things right and likely saved a lot of lives. The shooter did not run out of ammo. Even in the shooter’s room, the kids knew to play dead and to try to tell 911 where the shooter was. The training worked.

That's a really good and fair point. While I doubt the active shooter drills told kids to coat themselves in someone elses blood, it may have mentioned playing dead. I don't know if their drills covered use or non-use of cell phones. Generally, you don't want to be making any noise if hiding. If they were cognizant enough to turn off all cell phone pings/notifications/noises.

True story, but one day when my daughter was in undergrad college, a bunch of kids had a party and popped some balloons in a dorm room. Someone else called it in as a shooting and the campus went on lock down. During the lockdown, before the police knew what was up, my sister texts me she heard the campus was shut down, and she had texted my daughter to get a status update. I had to explain, why we don't do stuff like that during an active event.

[j-cubed]

...
What rules would you all feel comfortable with that would restrict gun access to the mentally unwell? Are you okay with red flag laws, background checks, licensing hurdles, anything?

A separate issue becomes what rules would people feel comfortable with that would restrict gun access to perpetrators of gang violence?

I don't want guns getting in the hands of the mentally unwell. The only way I think that can be done is by changing HIPPA laws, and I don't see either side touching that in the slightest. Right now, for the background NICS system to flag someone as mentally unwell, the court has to have been involved. No one just going to a psychiatrist with serious issues, but never in the legal system yet, would show up. However, I'm actually OK with some data from HIPPA flagging a deeper check, especially if it can be automated and not done by any person that may have a bias.

Red Flag laws sound good in principle, but there are some issues. They will get abused by the police, and it's questionable whether they actually work.
Most red flags are initiated by the police, not family members. Because it's easier for them, even though the police and DA already have legal ways of deeming someone a threat and taking their guns. They know the person they flag probably does not have the resources to fight it.
For example - Florida made a Red Flag Law in 2018 after Parkland. It's been used 9000 times since being implemented, averaging about 200 times a month. Florida averages about 83 firearm homicides a month and 150 firearm suicides a month. Last time I checked, when the number of red flags was only 3500 18 months after the law was implemented, FLorida's homicide rate had actually gone up when the rest of the country had gone down. Their suicide rate had gone up more than the rest of the country.
So, I think it's questionable whether the laws really work, or significantly affect firearm deaths.
https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/loca ... ERDRCSXLU/
https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_florida-r ... 84269.html

Next Red Flag laws are expensive - If you are improperly flagged, it could affect your work, your reputation, and cost a lot to get un-flagged.
Open Source Defense explained it well in their newsletter
https://opensourcedefense.substack.com/ ... punishment

There are a lot of people who support red flag laws with the best of intentions. And intuitively, the idea sounds reasonable — flag people who are imminently a danger to themselves or others, hold a fair adjudication to look into the allegations, and proceed accordingly. But that presupposes the existence of a system for adjudication that does not in fact exist. The system that does exist can only do one thing — make people give up quickly. If it tried to work how the textbooks say it does, it would grind to a halt.

If the legislators wanting Red FLag laws also included the stuff below, they would get more people on the right to sign on.
* Police can not initiate a Red FLag - only immediate family members or room mates.
* Automatic legal court representation for the person flagged
* Compensation to the person flagged if it turns out the flag is overturned
* Stiff fines and penalties for someone red flagging someone out of spite or "swatting" them.

Licensing hurdles are a slippery slope. New York has stiff licensing hurdles, that take years to overcome, if ever. Many people consider them racist as they affect minorities more than other groups.

We have background checks. All sales through a FFL dealer require a background check.
Sales on the internet must be transferred to a FFL dealer, and a background check is done. (There may be an exception if both people coincidentally live in the same state, and the state does not require a check on private purchases, and they are willing to meet in person for the transaction)
Most gun shows only allow licensed dealers to have tables, so a background check is done.

The sales that don't have background checks are person to person private transactions, and a handful of states require background checks on those sales as well. It's estimated about 80% of all legal firearm transfers are through a licensed dealer, which includes a background check. With those numbers, and checks that started in 1994, we should be able to easily determine whether the checks have had a positive impact on firearm deaths or not. I think the data is inconclusive myself.

I'm not sure you can keep the guns out of the hands of the gangs. They will eventually just start 3d Printing them if they have to. Maybe we need to focus on what drives the gang and go after that.

[nafod]

This is a true statement…

‘‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens‘

[j-cubed]

This is a true statement…

‘‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens‘

The USA is a pretty violent country, formed from violence, and we celebrate our history of violence every July. Even without guns, we'd still be pretty violent, and we would never get to the low homicide rates found in most of the countries we are compared to.

Exhibit A - even if we magically made all 400 million of the privately owned firearms in the country disappear, we'd still have one of the highest homicide rates of the countries we are typically compared to.


Exhibit B - Historically, our homicide rate has always been higher than other countries. Even before and after those countries enacted gun-control


Exhibit C - Take England for example. Their first gun control laws were enacted in 1920, and they didn't completely ban handguns until 1997. However, their homicide rate is actually up a little since enacting such super strict gun control. But the point is we were higher than England, before and after their gun-control laws. Of note, Northern Ireland did not completely ban handguns, and their homicide rate is pretty identical to the rest of the UK that did.


Maybe we're just a violent society.

If we break the US down into ethnic groups - The homicide rates of the White and Asian groups is pretty close to those European countries we are always compared to.


Maybe, just maybe, our country does a real horrible job of integrating minorities into societal norms and a prospous lifestyle. Maybe if we did better there, our homicide rate would drop a bunch.

[motherjuggs&speed]

Young black males are violent. As you pointed out yourself,

If we break the US down into ethnic groups - The homicide rates of the White and Asian groups is pretty close to those European countries we are always compared to.

As far as expecting societal norms, that's true. Whites have encouraged the worst traits of blacks since ~1960. This includes the racial rhetoric of prominent blacks.

[nafod]

I can’t argue that we’re a violent country, you’ve got great statistics on that.

I do feel that the country as a whole is basically standing outside that classroom door while those children are being killed, like those Uvalde cops did, I.e., we’re doing nothing. Just accepting it. Got to break some eggs.

The bill coming from the senate has some good stuff in it. Red flag, mental health, enhanced checks for under 21. It will save lives.

[nafod]

That guy in Oklahoma…so if you were in a public place near the entrance, and a guy walks in with multiple weapons including an AR15 with a magazine inserted, and you have that one chance to take him down before he turns on you, what would you do? If he’s a soon to be active shooter and you do nothing, 10-20 people die. It’s got to be a split-second decision.

Your family is in there too.

Guy wandering around in body armor with an AR-15 caused multiple 911 calls, cops came but determined what he was doing was legal under Oklahoma's "constitutional carry" law, but arrested him because he was in possession of brass knuckles, which are illegal

[j-cubed]

I can’t argue that we’re a violent country, you’ve got great statistics on that.

I do feel that the country as a whole is basically standing outside that classroom door while those children are being killed, like those Uvalde cops did, I.e., we’re doing nothing. Just accepting it. Got to break some eggs.

The bill coming from the senate has some good stuff in it. Red flag, mental health, enhanced checks for under 21. It will save lives.

The bill from the senate is actually better, imho, than so much of the arbitrary tired gun control bills from the past. It actually addresses mental health, hardening locations, domestic abuse (though this can be a slippery slope depending on what is really in it), youth background checks, gun trafficking, straw purchases, etc.
I'm still of a mind that the government abuses and will continue to abuse Red Flag laws even more. But that's a state level fight if this passes.

[nafod]

If we removed the artificial block on liability, the market would take care of a lot of this.

[j-cubed]

If we removed the artificial block on liability, the market would take care of a lot of this.

How?

I get some people want the firearm manufacturers to fail. But no one has explained how bankrupting gun businesses will actually stop any mass shootings or active shootings today or within the next couple decades.
Many gun manufacturers managed to bankrupt themselves, yet that hasn't made even the slightest blip in the violence graph.

[nafod]

If we removed the artificial block on liability, the market would take care of a lot of this.

How?

I get some people want the firearm manufacturers to fail. But no one has explained how bankrupting gun businesses will actually stop any mass shootings or active shootings today or within the next couple decades.
Many gun manufacturers managed to bankrupt themselves, yet that hasn't made even the slightest blip in the violence graph.

Guns are unsafe. Allowing torts would lead gun manufacturers to adopt precautionary marketing practices, safer designs, and more supervised sales regimes.

Not put them out of business, just steer them to making and selling a product that does less damage to the citizenry. Gun violence costs us billions of dollars born by victims and taxpayers. The manufacturers see none of that cost. They should bear some of it. It’d change their behavior for sure.

[Turdacious]

If we removed the artificial block on liability, the market would take care of a lot of this.

How?

I get some people want the firearm manufacturers to fail. But no one has explained how bankrupting gun businesses will actually stop any mass shootings or active shootings today or within the next couple decades.
Many gun manufacturers managed to bankrupt themselves, yet that hasn't made even the slightest blip in the violence graph.

Guns are unsafe. Allowing torts would lead gun manufacturers to adopt precautionary marketing practices, safer designs, and more supervised sales regimes.

Not put them out of business, just steer them to making and selling a product that does less damage to the citizenry. Gun violence costs us billions of dollars born by victims and taxpayers. The manufacturers see none of that cost. They should bear some of it. It’d change their behavior for sure.

Are you suggesting this for new guns only or existing ones?

[motherjuggs&speed]

And for how many other products? Cars, lighters, knives, computers, all kinds of things can be used to do harm. And how many people in the chain are liable? All of them? What about a guy who sold a gun to someone who sold a gun years later to someone who killed someone. He's part of it. How about the people who work in the factory?

I used to think that people who want to legislate and litigate everything don't follow their own logic. But most of them do understand that the Hydra doesn't stop where you want it to. Once you let loose the beast of civil and/or criminal liability, it keeps going like The Blob, eventually consuming everything.

[nafod]

And for how many other products? Cars, lighters, knives, computers, all kinds of things can be used to do harm.

It’s already in place for all of those products.

Guns have a special law protecting participants from all kinds of liability that apply to no other device. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) specifically bars civil lawsuits against manufacturers, distributors, and dealers of firearms.

Death by gun shot is the leading cause of death for children now.

Imagine if the tobacco companies had memos saying that more deaths due to cigarettes resulted in more cigarettes being sold, on top of the memos that showed they knew cigarettes were addictive. They’d have been further crushed. Yesterday I guarantee you the bean counters know exactly that mass shoutings are good business and sell guns, and that AR15s are the mass shooter’s weapon of choice. You sell an AR15 to a bad guy, the guns sell themselves to a good guy.

The cost of their sold product on our society is currently not born by them. It should be.

Are you suggesting this for new guns only or existing ones?

Negligent behavior. People are negligent, not guns. Yet negligent behavior with guns is protected, that wouldn’t be protected with other products.

[j-cubed]

Guns are unsafe. Allowing torts would lead gun manufacturers to adopt precautionary marketing practices, safer designs, and more supervised sales regimes.

Not put them out of business, just steer them to making and selling a product that does less damage to the citizenry. Gun violence costs us billions of dollars born by victims and taxpayers. The manufacturers see none of that cost. They should bear some of it. It’d change their behavior for sure.

If you believe the marketing practices somehow lead to gun violence, than you have to concede what 2A people have been saying all along that violent video games and movies do the same.

Firearms are incredibly safe these days, in the same way cars have gotten safer with passive safety features such as crumble zones, multiple air bags, etc modern firearms have internal safeties that keep them from going off if dropped, or something bumps into it. You have to actually pull the trigger to get modern design to go off. Plus, just like the auto industry, when a safety problem is discovered, the firearms are recalled and repaired. - I mean, I don't know the last time a firearm just got up on its own volition and shot someone.

The firearm industry gets sued all the time, the only protection is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which protects them when a crime is committed using a specific firearm. So they don't get sued because Johnny Gangbanger decides do a drive by and an innocent bystander is shot. I mean, why not sue the violent game and movie makers so they can pay their share of the violence they help kindle?
Besides, the govt has already saddled the firearm industry with major conservation efforts and the industry is the major contributor to the Wildlife Restoration Act. Which has had a measurable positive effect on habitat restoration and helping endangered species.

[Gene]

I don't want guns getting in the hands of the mentally unwell. The only way I think that can be done is by changing HIPPA laws, and I don't see either side touching that in the slightest. Right now, for the background NICS system to flag someone as mentally unwell, the court has to have been involved. No one just going to a psychiatrist with serious issues, but never in the legal system yet, would show up. However, I'm actually OK with some data from HIPPA flagging a deeper check, especially if it can be automated and not done by any person that may have a bias.

What does "mentally unwell" mean?

Is the person whose spouse just died mentally unwell?

Is the person whose long term relationship has cratered mentally unwell?

Is the person who has Bipolar because of genetics mentally unwell?

We have had a category of person who doesn't get firearms legally. Called "Mentally Defective". Since 1968.


However there is one category of person who gets zapped for gun rights if they seek help. Veterans with PTSD.

"If you need significant medical care for your PTSD, it’s likely that the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) would give you a 100% disability rating. If this happens, it may also be likely that you'll lose your weapon. The criteria for receiving a 100% rating include:

Total social and occupational impairment
Hallucinations or delusions on a consistent basis
A display of "grossly inappropriate" behavior
A possible danger to themselves or others
Memory loss of their name or names of relatives
An inability to manage a normal routine, including taking care of personal hygiene

Under these conditions, a veteran would likely be rated at 100% and be unable to own a gun."

https://www.cuddiganlaw.com/blog/gun-ow ... h-ptsd.cfm

"In some cases where Veterans have severe mental health symptoms, the VA may determine they are incompetent to manage their financial affairs, and a fiduciary is appointed to manage their benefits. When this happens, the VA must report the individual to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System run by the FBI, and they will no longer be able to purchase firearms.The Brady Act of 1993 prohibits the sale of firearms to certain individuals, including beneficiaries the VA determines are incompetent."

https://www.seankendalllaw.net/blog/dis ... rights.cfm

If you have PTSD for other things? I don't know.

I'm not sure you can keep the guns out of the hands of the gangs. They will eventually just start 3d Printing them if they have to. Maybe we need to focus on what drives the gang and go after that.

There are firearms all over the US, stolen, sold for cash, imported...

3D printing is one way.

Here is another... If you like South Asian music this is good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mp2JJcJjd74


Ammunition... even easier.

[Gene]

Guns have a special law protecting participants from all kinds of liability that apply to no other device. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) specifically bars civil lawsuits against manufacturers, distributors, and dealers of firearms.
[/quote]

...but allows lawsuits for defects and culpability. Remington was bankrupted in the Sandy Hook settlement because of advertising for their Bushmaster rifle. $73,000,000 paid out.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/15/nyre ... ement.html


The PLCAA began because Andy Cuomo, while he secretary of HUD, tried to bully Smith and Wesson into agreeing with the Brady Campaign. What followed was the S&W settlement. Cuomo said that gun makers who failed to comply with Brady Campaign demands would "suffer the death of a thousand cuts".

People like me quit buying S&W firearms. They went bankrupt. Later Congress responded with the Protection for Lawful Commerce Act.

If you don't like such protections then stop abusing Tort to impose your values onto others. Persuade and reason with people.

Guns have a special law protecting participants from all kinds of liability that apply to no other device.

All Vaxx makers since 1988 have been immune to lawsuit...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22

Sea Going vessels have limitations of liability...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/33/2704


These are two I could find...

[Gene]

Yesterday I guarantee you the bean counters know exactly that mass shoutings are good business and sell guns, and that AR15s are the mass shooter’s weapon of choice. You sell an AR15 to a bad guy, the guns sell themselves to a good guy.

...except that AR15s are NOT the mass shooter's weapon of choice. Much like I had to do with ATF regs, I have to come in, again, from Uncle Sam.

Usually mass shootings are done with handguns. A mass shooting only requires four or more people. A common revolver will do.

Rifles are still used in relatively few murders in the US. More people, mostly kids, are beaten to death than are killed with rifles.

This is from Politifact.... which says "we don't know about those 3,326 firearms.". Yeah, well, assumptions are easy.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... eet-rifle/


FBI for 2019

Handguns - 10,258
Rifles - 364
Shotguns - 200
Firearm unknown - 3,326

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/20 ... able-8.xls

[nafod]

Guns are unsafe. Allowing torts would lead gun manufacturers to adopt precautionary marketing practices, safer designs, and more supervised sales regimes.

Not put them out of business, just steer them to making and selling a product that does less damage to the citizenry. Gun violence costs us billions of dollars born by victims and taxpayers. The manufacturers see none of that cost. They should bear some of it. It’d change their behavior for sure.

If you believe the marketing practices somehow lead to gun violence, than you have to concede what 2A people have been saying all along that violent video games and movies do the same.

Firearms are incredibly safe these days, in the same way cars have gotten safer with passive safety features such as crumble zones, multiple air bags, etc modern firearms have internal safeties that keep them from going off if dropped, or something bumps into it. You have to actually pull the trigger to get modern design to go off. Plus, just like the auto industry, when a safety problem is discovered, the firearms are recalled and repaired. - I mean, I don't know the last time a firearm just got up on its own volition and shot someone.

The firearm industry gets sued all the time, the only protection is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which protects them when a crime is committed using a specific firearm. So they don't get sued because Johnny Gangbanger decides do a drive by and an innocent bystander is shot. I mean, why not sue the violent game and movie makers so they can pay their share of the violence they help kindle?
Besides, the govt has already saddled the firearm industry with major conservation efforts and the industry is the major contributor to the Wildlife Restoration Act. Which has had a measurable positive effect on habitat restoration and helping endangered species.

There’s no question that video games are gateway drugs to the real thing. The gun manufacturers used to license their gun designs to the video game makers for use in the games! That all went away when both sides realized it was a bad look following mass shootings.

Firearms aren’t incredibly safe. They are central to the 50,000 gun deaths per year by definition. Used in 80% of murders and 50% of suicides. Just having a gun in the house for self defense greatly increases the odds you’ll die by gunshot.

There are tons of immediate procedures and technologies to be followed right now to make them safer. Trigger locks, gun safes, safe car storage, training, etc. These things would save lives, and are best practices. If someone allows their gun to be stolen unlocked and unprotected, they should bear a severe cost.

There are lots of ready technologies such as ones letting only the owner shoot the gun , tracking guns, keeping records, etc. The tech exists so I could give you my gun in a hold up and you couldn’t use it on me. Or the neighbor’s kid could find it and try to squeeze the trigger. Smart guns. The NRA has blocked their development and rollout.

Again, I agree with you that there’s a real synergism between the video game makers and the gun manufacturers and sellers.

[j-cubed]

There’s no question that video games are gateway drugs to the real thing. The gun manufacturers used to license their gun designs to the video game makers for use in the games! That all went away when both sides realized it was a bad look following mass shootings.

So they saw a problem and corrected it? That's a good thing.

Firearms aren’t incredibly safe. They are central to the 50,000 gun deaths per year by definition. Used in 80% of murders and 50% of suicides. Just having a gun in the house for self defense greatly increases the odds you’ll die by gunshot.

And if you have kitchen knives in the home, your chances of cutting yourself someday is increased,. Prior to Covid, the death rate from accidental shootings was at the lowest point ever. Similarly, the advent of new technology in cars has made them safer allowing more people to survive accidents that would have seriously injured or killed them 30+ years ago. Programs like the NRA's Eddie Eagle and others, have taught young school children about basic gun safety. It's a shame the gun control groups like EveryTown and MomsDemandAction do not support that kind of education.

Firearms are incredibly safe, they just don't go off by themselves. If people use them for unintended purposes, it's not the inherit safety of the gun that failed, it's the character of the person abusing it. People carry handguns "appendix" style all the time, with the barrel pointed right at their junk, and guess what, there has not been a rash of accidents of people shooting their ding-dong's off. Gun manufacturers can't control if someone uses a safe tool in an unsafe or illegal way.

There are tons of immediate procedures and technologies to be followed right now to make them safer. Trigger locks, gun safes, safe car storage, training, etc. These things would save lives, and are best practices. If someone allows their gun to be stolen unlocked and unprotected, they should bear a severe cost.

A. No one is against training, safes, locks etc. Many are against mandates to them. However, the real problem is that most of the guns used in crimes have been acquired illegally. Most of the accidents of kids finding a gun are from kids finding a gun from someone that has it illegally. If people are acquiring their guns illegally, what are the odds they'll follow a law saying they need to have a trigger lock.
B. People can be sued for negligence, it happens all the time already.
C. Gross Negligence can be criminally charged, like the Oxford High shooters parents are being charged criminally.
D. Why are you putting the culpability and penalty on the victim of a crime instead of on the criminal?

There are lots of ready technologies such as ones letting only the owner shoot the gun , tracking guns, keeping records, etc. The tech exists so I could give you my gun in a hold up and you couldn’t use it on me. Or the neighbor’s kid could find it and try to squeeze the trigger. Smart guns. The NRA has blocked their development and rollout.

Ok, that's as much BS as your post saying "AR15's are the choice of mass shooters" - I mean that's straight out of MomsDemandAction's playbook of lies.
A. - Neither the NRA nor the NSSF have blocked any smart gun technology or development. Their position is that they don't oppose the technology or the idea, they oppose a mandate to using it. Believe it or not, pro 2a groups are not against technology that makes guns safer. It just has to be reliable, which it is not yet.
B. - Currently smart gun technology is deemed insufficient, unreliable, and incredibly slow. No police agency, no military has adopted it. Until they are willing to set an example, the public surely won't adopt it. It may get there some day, but today is not that day.

Again, I agree with you that there’s a real synergism between the video game makers and the gun manufacturers and sellers.

Apparently there is not anymore if, as you claimed earlier, gun manufacturers stopped licensing models to game developers. I'd call that a small win.

[nafod]

So they saw a problem and corrected it? That's a good thing.

They hid it, not corrected it.

Off to drink beer. Cheers!

[Gene]

So they saw a problem and corrected it? That's a good thing.

They hid it, not corrected it.

Off to drink beer. Cheers!

Except I didn't write that, J-cubed wrote it.