School Shootings

[AM64]

I found this from USA Today:

Here is a list of mass shootings in the U.S. that featured AR-15-style rifles during the last 35 years, courtesy of the Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries and USA TODAY research:

Feb. 24, 1984: Tyrone Mitchell, 28, used an AR-15, a Stoeger 12-gauge shotgun and a Winchester 12-gauge shotgun to kill two and wound 12 at 49th Street Elementary School in Los Angeles before killing himself.
Oct. 7, 2007: Tyler Peterson, 20, used an AR-15 to kill six and injure one at an apartment in Crandon, Wis., before killing himself.
June 20, 2012: James Eagan Holmes, 24, used an AR-15-style .223-caliber Smith and Wesson rifle with a 100-round magazine, a 12-gauge Remington shotgun and two .40-caliber Glock semi-automatic pistols to kill 12 and injure 58 at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo.
Dec. 14, 2012: Adam Lanza, 20, used an AR-15-style rifle, a .223-caliber Bushmaster, to kill 27 people — his mother, 20 students and six teachers — in Newtown, Conn., before killing himself.
June 7, 2013: John Zawahri, 23, used an AR-15-style .223-caliber rifle and a .44-caliber Remington revolver to kill five and injure three at a home in Santa Monica, Calif., before he was killed.
March 19, 2015: Justin Fowler, 24, used an AR-15 to kill one and injure two on a street in Little Water, N.M., before he was killed.
May 31, 2015: Jeffrey Scott Pitts, 36, used an AR-15 and .45-caliber handgun to kill two and injure two at a store in Conyers, Ga., before he was killed.
Oct. 31, 2015: Noah Jacob Harpham, 33, used an AR-15, a .357-caliber revolver and a 9mm semi-automatic pistol to kill three on a street in Colorado Springs, Colo., before he was killed.
Dec. 2, 2015: Syed Rizwyan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, 28 and 27, used two AR-15-style, .223-caliber Remington rifles and two 9 mm handguns to kill 14 and injure 21 at his workplace in San Bernardino, Calif., before they were killed.
June 12, 2016: Omar Mateen, 29, used an AR-15 style rifle (a Sig Sauer MCX), and a 9mm Glock semi-automatic pistol to kill 49 people and injure 50 at an Orlando nightclub before he was killed.
Oct. 1, 2017: Stephen Paddock, 64, used a stockpile of guns including an AR-15 to kill 58 people and injure hundreds at a music festival in Las Vegas before he killed himself.
Nov. 5, 2017: Devin Kelley, 26, used an AR-15 style Ruger rifle to kill 26 people at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, before he was killed.
Feb. 14, 2018: Police say Nikolas Cruz, 19, used an AR-15-style rifle to kill at least 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla.

Chicago has quite a history of shootings - maybe the gold standard, but ARs don't seem to be the weapon of choice there.

 

[AM64]

Unfortunately, this shooting, like others before it, will stay in the news for a week or so, then fade away without anything substantive being accomplished. Problem is that no one can agree on what, if anything, can be done to mitigate such events. It's that faulty 2 party system again. One side says "ban guns!" The other side says "arm everyone!" Both are focusing on the instrument, rather than the cause.

Maybe it has to do with the media sensationalizing and politicizing anything and everything; after a while the audience becomes immune. According to Joe Stalin one death is a tragedy - millions are statistics. Ever notice that after a major event there seems to be no other news - that somehow sitting around and rehashing the story with endless numbers of the involved means there were no earthquakes or other major events anywhere in the world? "The Russians are coming" even got a reprieve.

 

[volglass]

I know that, he doesn't seem to realize that. I am trying to get him to admit the small stuff before I moved on to other points.

You've already moved the discussion from "what has already factually happened" to "this is what he would've done". This shooter was, as I think all mass shooters are, mentally unstable to say the least and we can all agree to that. So I don't think any rational person can say what any of these mass shooters would do if... You and I cannot understand why he would do it in the first place, so we cannot draw conclusions over what actions he would have taken if he could not have bought that firearm. He could have bought a handgun, shotgun, knife, kitchen supplies to make a bomb, or walked home. We don't know.

First, I simply googled an article about mass shooting using ARs. I see that in many cases multiple firearms were used. This is not my study or my facts, just an article that could provide fodder for discussion. Feel free to copy and paste other information to facilitate the discussion.

 

[Vol8188]

You've already moved the discussion from "what has already factually happened" to "this is what he would've done". This shooter was, as I think all mass shooters are, mentally unstable to say the least and we can all agree to that. So I don't think any rational person can say what any of these mass shooters would do if... You and I cannot understand why he would do it in the first place, so we cannot draw conclusions over what actions he would have taken if he could not have bought that firearm. He could have bought a handgun, shotgun, knife, kitchen supplies to make a bomb, or walked home. We don't know.

First, I simply googled an article about mass shooting using ARs. I see that in many cases multiple firearms were used. This is not my study or my facts, just an article that could provide fodder for discussion. Feel free to copy and paste other information to facilitate the discussion.

We do know because we are stupid people. So we are intelligent to understand that if you’re committed enough to kill numerous people, you’re not going to cry over not being able to do so with your favorite weapon. You’re just going to buy another weapon.

Anyone with an iq over room temperature understands that

 

[volglass]

so its not about saving lives, its specifically about one gun platform.

It's about saving lives and weighing that vs our 2nd amendment right. Whichever gun platform does not matter to me. So please tell me at which point you are not willing to save lives for your 2nd amendment right. That at least is a discussion.

As I said earlier, my views are firearms are not for fun they are tools to be used responsibly. My original question was what utility does an AR type rifle have.

 

[LouderVol]

You've already moved the discussion from "what has already factually happened" to "this is what he would've done". This shooter was, as I think all mass shooters are, mentally unstable to say the least and we can all agree to that. So I don't think any rational person can say what any of these mass shooters would do if... You and I cannot understand why he would do it in the first place, so we cannot draw conclusions over what actions he would have taken if he could not have bought that firearm. He could have bought a handgun, shotgun, knife, kitchen supplies to make a bomb, or walked home. We don't know.

First, I simply googled an article about mass shooting using ARs. I see that in many cases multiple firearms were used. This is not my study or my facts, just an article that could provide fodder for discussion. Feel free to copy and paste other information to facilitate the discussion.

your article didn't actually state what actually happened. As in most cases there were multiple guns. ARs for the most of us take two hands to use. limiting the usage of the other guns, and vice versa. so your article wasn't really moving the argument forward that ARs are a significant threat to the public beyond anything else. its just a flashy short name most people can grasp and think it means "assault rifle".

he was definitely mentally unhinged but lets not act like he was mentally handicapped and incapable of forming other plans. While neither of us could "know" what would have happened sans ARs, it is quiet reasonable and most probable that he would have done it another way.

and if you are going to take away rights from the people you better have a darn good reason that actually solves the problem without kicking it down the road for the next guy.

 

[volglass]

We do know because we are stupid people. So we are intelligent to understand that if you’re committed enough to kill numerous people, you’re not going to cry over not being able to do so with your favorite weapon. You’re just going to buy another weapon.

Anyone with an iq over room temperature understands that

At the risk of being someone with an IQ under 72, I don't follow your first sentence but I get the gist. I guess we just disagree about being able to predict how mentally unstable people will act in the future.

 

[Vol8188]

At the risk of being someone with an IQ under 72, I don't follow your first sentence but I get the gist. I guess we just disagree about being able to predict how mentally unstable people will act in the future.

FTR: you believe if he couldn’t have got ahold of an ar, he may have simply changed his mind?

That’s your real view?

 

[DrRosenRosen]

Well, in this case something could have been done. There were plenty of warning signs on this kid, including a tip to the FBI last month that wasn't acted on. Shooters like this usually show warning signs of mental instability. They need to be taken seriously.

What would have been done? Did he break any laws before the shooting? Are we going to assign FBI detail to any kid that's a loner, has no friends, and hates the world?

Or is it being suggested that if big bad FBI comes along he's going to decide to go straight?

 

[volglass]

your article didn't actually state what actually happened. As in most cases there were multiple guns. ARs for the most of us take two hands to use. limiting the usage of the other guns, and vice versa. so your article wasn't really moving the argument forward that ARs are a significant threat to the public beyond anything else. its just a flashy short name most people can grasp and think it means "assault rifle".

he was definitely mentally unhinged but lets not act like he was mentally handicapped and incapable of forming other plans. While neither of us could "know" what would have happened sans ARs, it is quiet reasonable and most probable that he would have done it another way.

and if you are going to take away rights from the people you better have a darn good reason that actually solves the problem without kicking it down the road for the next guy.

Right, AR does not mean "assault rifle". I think it's just a common platform for semi-auto rifle but I'm no expert by any means.

Your bolded part is absolutely correct and where the discussions should lie. Again, my question was purpose and utility v taking away rights. My position is that if a firearm is simply fun to shoot at the range but not being used for any other purpose and it is a common type of firearm used in mass shootings, then I don't have as much of a problem saying manufacturers should not be able to sell it either at all or with much more scrutiny. For example, earlier I posited that there could be a hunting license requirement for the purchase of this type of firearm. Hogg didn't like that idea but what do you think?

 

[LouderVol]

It's about saving lives and weighing that vs our 2nd amendment right. Whichever gun platform does not matter to me. So please tell me at which point you are not willing to save lives for your 2nd amendment right. That at least is a discussion.

As I said earlier, my views are firearms are not for fun they are tools to be used responsibly. My original question was what utility does an AR type rifle have.

fun is a function. and for most people outside of cities there are varmints and vermin that need handling. just because there are other tools that could be used doesn't justify taking away another. just because they can be fun doesn't mean there shouldn't be responsibility.

what about saving lives where we don't have specified rights? Cars are more deadly than guns. under your argument we should take those away. we don't need cars, there are better tools out there for us to use, and we have no right to them. I would much sooner give up my car than my gun.

How does me giving up my gun save lives? you are taking away EVERYONE's rights, not just the dead. and you have yet to adequately prove that taking away rights would save lives. You can't "Know" that it will. criminals still get guns, criminals still kill people even where they are banned.

you are going to have to convince me, that taking away my gun will stop someone else from shooting someone else. you aren't taking away the guns from the crazy and the criminals. you are taking them away from the average Joe who is no more guilty of anything than you. My gun has nothing to do with any other gun, despite LG trying to blame every gun owner for every mass murder.

 

[volglass]

And my concern is that "kicking it down the road" is exactly what is going on because I don't think there have been any changes whether that be for mental health/help or firearm legislation

 

[Vol8188]

And my concern is that "kicking it down the road" is exactly what is going on because I don't think there have been any changes whether that be for mental health/help or firearm legislation

Please respond to my post above

 

[IPleadInsanity]

There is only 1 short term solution and that is to increase armed security in the schools. I don't know how to do that exactly but something needs to be done next week. We have not rounded up the crazies, so they are out there right now plotting the murder of more children. Increasing laws related to the purchase of firearms will not help, too many guns on the streets, too many ways to get them. Something radical needs to be done now while these other issues are discussed.

 

[volglass]

fun is a function. and for most people outside of cities there are varmints and vermin that need handling. just because there are other tools that could be used doesn't justify taking away another. just because they can be fun doesn't mean there shouldn't be responsibility.

what about saving lives where we don't have specified rights? Cars are more deadly than guns. under your argument we should take those away. we don't need cars, there are better tools out there for us to use, and we have no right to them. I would much sooner give up my car than my gun.

How does me giving up my gun save lives? you are taking away EVERYONE's rights, not just the dead. and you have yet to adequately prove that taking away rights would save lives. You can't "Know" that it will. criminals still get guns, criminals still kill people even where they are banned.

you are going to have to convince me, that taking away my gun will stop someone else from shooting someone else. you aren't taking away the guns from the crazy and the criminals. you are taking them away from the average Joe who is no more guilty of anything than you. My gun has nothing to do with any other gun, despite LG trying to blame every gun owner for every mass murder.

Whoa there, fella. I never said anything about taking your guns away so let's not go down that road.

Your first paragraph is what I was asking about. Specifically, should we try to stop mass shooters from having access to semi-auto rifles like ARs and if so how?

People might not want to try because they feel like mass shooters will just use another form of violence that equally lethal. Other might not want to try because they don't want to go down a slippery slope of firearm regulation which could eventually lead to "average Joe" losing his ability to feed or protect his family. Or there could be other reasons that I'm not thinking of. I think there are pros and cons to all of these things.

 

[1972 Grad]

Right, AR does not mean "assault rifle". I think it's just a common platform for semi-auto rifle but I'm no expert by any means.

Your bolded part is absolutely correct and where the discussions should lie. Again, my question was purpose and utility v taking away rights. My position is that if a firearm is simply fun to shoot at the range but not being used for any other purpose and it is a common type of firearm used in mass shootings, then I don't have as much of a problem saying manufacturers should not be able to sell it either at all or with much more scrutiny. For example, earlier I posited that there could be a hunting license requirement for the purchase of this type of firearm. Hogg didn't like that idea but what do you think?

The term AR comes from the firearms company Armalite. They developed a rifle to replace the M-1 Garand , which was the AR-10. The AR-15 was an offshoot, designed in a smaller caliber and lighter weight.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

This is an undeniable fact. The proposition that he may have gotten another weapon of choice and may have still committed this atrocity is true but we KNOW that he and many others actually used this specific weapon and he, the and the vegas shooter, and the Sandy Hook shooter's mother all bought them legally.

Another poster said he owns one and likes to shoot it because it's fun. Sorry, but I personally don't think you having fun shooting this weapon is enough for me to say that these should be available on the market. If taking it away from you means that 100+ people and children are not dead, than I vote to infringe on your"fun".

These guns are not used for hunting or personal protection. They only exist for fun. Owning a firearm is a responsibility and having fun with such a firearm is not responsible IMO.

wow.

 

[volglass]

FTR: you believe if he couldn’t have got ahold of an ar, he may have simply changed his mind?

That’s your real view?

Condescending tone notwithstanding, I don't have any belief as to what he would have done. He may have bought two handguns, five knives, made a bomb at home or any number of things. Or he may have shrugged his shoulders, walked home, kicked a box of lightbulbs, or got run over the next day. We don't know what would have happened we only know what did happen.

FTR: why do you think he chose an AR? He could have made a bomb in his basement that would have killed many more people like Timothy McVeigh. If his intention was to kill and hurt as many people as he could there are much more lethal ways he could have done.

You seem to argue that mass shooters would use anything to get their results, so why choose this specific method?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

At the risk of being someone with an IQ under 72, I don't follow your first sentence but I get the gist. I guess we just disagree about being able to predict how mentally unstable people will act in the future.

Oh? You are projecting that if they cannot get ARs that they will not kill anyone.

 

[LouderVol]

Right, AR does not mean "assault rifle". I think it's just a common platform for semi-auto rifle but I'm no expert by any means.

Your bolded part is absolutely correct and where the discussions should lie. Again, my question was purpose and utility v taking away rights. My position is that if a firearm is simply fun to shoot at the range but not being used for any other purpose and it is a common type of firearm used in mass shootings, then I don't have as much of a problem saying manufacturers should not be able to sell it either at all or with much more scrutiny. For example, earlier I posited that there could be a hunting license requirement for the purchase of this type of firearm. Hogg didn't like that idea but what do you think?

I don't know much about hunting license requirements to know if they are substantially different than the back ground check you already go through to purchase a fire arm. again in cases like this or Vegas, it wouldn't have made a difference. again you are trusting a system that already fails. The FBI were notified, and did nothing.

my ideas have been more firearm education (which in my world comes with a big honking dose of safety lessons). IMO is kinda similar to sex ed. you aren't doing it so that kids have more sex or guns, but so if/when they do they can be safe. secondly, if you want to buy a gun you get a "license" to buy (not own or operate). IMO CCW should get this regardless of buying. its good for a year, includes written and merit (safe operation of a gun). after getting said license you can buy the standard guns out there. full autos and others are still more controlled. no cost associated with the test. IMO this would be more effective than more back ground screening. ( you still have to get that). third, you can get rid of bump stocks and some of the other near-auto modifications. Fourth, offer a tax incentive for gun safes and other devices made for storing guns/making them safer/temporarily unusable. this is to hopefully combat the issue of kids finding a gun around the house.

thoughts?

 

[DancingOutlaw]

I almost all of your accounts the actual weapon used isn't defined. Did the killers use every weapon listed or were the additional weapons just there? Besides if you really break it down, averaging 6.5 deaths a year isn't a lot. More people per year are probably murdered with knives than that.

More people are killed with bare fists than rifles.

 

[hndog609]

Right, AR does not mean "assault rifle". I think it's just a common platform for semi-auto rifle but I'm no expert by any means.

Your bolded part is absolutely correct and where the discussions should lie. Again, my question was purpose and utility v taking away rights. My position is that if a firearm is simply fun to shoot at the range but not being used for any other purpose and it is a common type of firearm used in mass shootings, then I don't have as much of a problem saying manufacturers should not be able to sell it either at all or with much more scrutiny. For example, earlier I posited that there could be a hunting license requirement for the purchase of this type of firearm. Hogg didn't like that idea but what do you think?

Of all the firearms I know the AR platform is the most useful. It might not be the "best" for certain applications but there's nothing else that does more better across the spectrum. You've admitted to being no expert so I'll ask; were you aware that you can change from an upper with a carbine length barrel and red dot (perfect for defensive and general shorter range duties) to a rifle length with precision optic by manipulating two pivot pins? Mind you that's just with the same caliber. The same process could have you change from the cheap and readily available (the better to practice with) 223/5.56 to (only a partial list mind you) a .17 HMR, .22LR, 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, 300 Blackout, 458 SOCOM and .50 Beowulf. And THAT'S not including AR10 platform possibilities. (which actually came first) The platform has become so popular that old school/traditional brands like Remington, Ruger, Savage, Mossberg and S&W have their own variants. There's a reason for that and it's not so people can go shoot up schools and concerts.

 

[volglass]

Oh? You are projecting that if they cannot get ARs that they will not kill anyone.

Not at all. The only thing I can project is that if they cannot get ARs then they will not kill anyone with an AR. We don't know what would happen if he didn't buy it.

Do you think it was a good thing that he bought that firearm? If not, then what could have been done?

 

[LouderVol]

Whoa there, fella. I never said anything about taking your guns away so let's not go down that road.

Your first paragraph is what I was asking about. Specifically, should we try to stop mass shooters from having access to semi-auto rifles like ARs and if so how?

People might not want to try because they feel like mass shooters will just use another form of violence that equally lethal. Other might not want to try because they don't want to go down a slippery slope of firearm regulation which could eventually lead to "average Joe" losing his ability to feed or protect his family. Or there could be other reasons that I'm not thinking of. I think there are pros and cons to all of these things.

only addressing your second paragraph. Yes we should try and stop the shootings. Denying them a semi auto is not the way to do it. especially as identifying who is going to kill people before they do is pretty impossible.

 

[volglass]

I don't know much about hunting license requirements to know if they are substantially different than the back ground check you already go through to purchase a fire arm. again in cases like this or Vegas, it wouldn't have made a difference. again you are trusting a system that already fails. The FBI were notified, and did nothing.

my ideas have been more firearm education (which in my world comes with a big honking dose of safety lessons). IMO is kinda similar to sex ed. you aren't doing it so that kids have more sex or guns, but so if/when they do they can be safe. secondly, if you want to buy a gun you get a "license" to buy (not own or operate). IMO CCW should get this regardless of buying. its good for a year, includes written and merit (safe operation of a gun). after getting said license you can buy the standard guns out there. full autos and others are still more controlled. no cost associated with the test. IMO this would be more effective than more back ground screening. ( you still have to get that). third, you can get rid of bump stocks and some of the other near-auto modifications. Fourth, offer a tax incentive for gun safes and other devices made for storing guns/making them safer/temporarily unusable. this is to hopefully combat the issue of kids finding a gun around the house.

thoughts?

Great ideas! I really believe that if education and licensing was required for the purchase of a firearm it would create at least a time and effort barrier which could curtail the purposeful purchase to misuse a firearm. Now, I think you can just buy one off the shelf, wait 45 min for the background check to clear and you have it. If you have to go through the proper procedure and invest your time and effort to obtain anything you tend to be more responsible with it.

I hope I read your ideas correctly.