They've had enough. Students across country walk out to demand new gun laws

minnie616 said:

May not reduce suicide rates or those killed by robberies but
it should decrease the numbers of dead in mass shootings.

Click to expand...

Most of these a done with handguns, are you for banning handguns? less than 1% of all shootings are with assault rifles.

In the years during the AWB (assault weapons ban) the average mass shooting killed almost six people. In the periods before and after the ban, between eight and nine people were killed in each mass shooting.

Click to expand...

Link? also there is correlation at best, not causation, the very same guns without certain features like a bayonett were still available, the pre-ban market was hot, not one less assault weapon was sold due to the AWB

ReverendHellh0und said:

...

Link? also there is correlation at best, not causation, the very same guns without certain features like a bayonett were still available, the pre-ban market was hot, not one less assault weapon was sold due to the AWB

Click to expand...

Banning assault weapons is one of multifaceted things that will help decrease the deadly body count during mass shootings.

Still when the 10 year Assault Weapons Ban was in effect about 6 people were killed during each mass shooting.

But during 8 years before the AWB and in the 13 years after the AWB the numbers killed with each mass shooting were between 8 and 9 persons.

The stats were taken from the Deaths per shooting 1982 to November 2017 Mother Jones chart.

Those stats did not include the Parkland Shooting witch killed 17 people.

ReverendHellh0und said:

Most of these a done with handguns, are you for banning handguns? less than 1% of all shootings are with assault rifles. ...

Click to expand...

Deaths by suicide needs to be adressed by a different multifaceted approach than mass shootings.

And no, I don’t want to ban handguns.

I want the AWB , like the one we had in the 1990s. It decreased mass shooting then and it could decrease mass shooting deaths again.

Here is a Time article that shows Charts of the 35 year history ( 1982 to Nov of 2017 ) of mass shootings in the US.


35 Years of Mass Shootings in the U.S. in One Chart

Update, Nov. 5, 2017: This post has been updated to include the mass shooting in Sutherland, Texas and several intermediate acts.

An outdoor country music festival descended into chaos and bloodshed in Las Vegas Sunday night when a gunman opened fire from the 32nd floor of a nearby hotel, killing at least 58 people and wounding more than 500 according to early reports. The mass shooting is the deadliest in modern U.S. history.

It is also far from the first mass shooting in the U.S. A database compiled by Mother Jones going back to 1982 counts 91 such incidents in which at least three people were killed, not including the gunman. In that time, 722 people have been killed and 1,177 wounded, based on the current counts from Las Vegas. The following chart visualizes each mass shooting in terms of deaths and injuries.

Click to expand...

Mass Shootings in the US: See 35 Years in One Chart | Time

austrianecon said:

No, Cardinal.. here are some facts for you. Almost 2/3rds of gun related deaths in the US are suicides. You get that? 2/3rds.

Click to expand...

Point being...?

You strip out that number (which is about 23,000 deaths a year) and you see the US gun related death rate drop below 4 per 100,000.

Click to expand...

Why would I do that?

You strip out police gun related deaths, its closer to 3 per 100,000.

Click to expand...

Does the figure I provided include police gun related deaths?

That's the irony in all of this, gun suicides are done with AR-15s, but pistols and shotguns.

Yes...and?

Click to expand...

Facts matter and the anti-gun crowd has never been truthful about it. You aren't gonna stop suicides and you are barely gonna touch the per 100,000 death rate with banning AR-15s.

Click to expand...

minnie616 said:

Here is a Time article that shows Charts of the 35 year history ( 1982 to Nov of 2017 ) of mass shootings in the US.

Click to expand...

Did you happen to notice that the frequency of mass shootings has been increasing over time?

Did you happen to notice that the frequency of mass shooting has been increasing faster that the "number of guns per capita in the US" has been increasing?

Did you happen to notice that the frequency of mass shootings has been increasing even though the "percentage of households with guns" has been decreasing?

One thing that "gun control" does is reduce the number of people who actually have guns.

If the number of people who actually have guns has been going down while the frequency of mass shootings has been going up, what logical connection is there between decreasing the number of people who actually have guns and reducing the frequency of mass shootings?

If there is no positive correlation between "reducing the number of people who actually have guns" and "reducing the frequency of mass shootings" (and in fact the correlation is negative [the data shows that a lower the percentage of people who actually have guns equated to a higher frequency of mass shootings]) wouldn't it seem like a good idea to take a look to see if there isn't some other factor in play which should be addressed rather than by competing "MORE GUNS" and "LESS GUNS" chanting?

TU Curmudgeon said:

Did you happen to notice that the frequency of mass shootings has been increasing over time?

Did you happen to notice that the frequency of mass shooting has been increasing faster that the "number of guns per capita in the US" has been increasing?

Did you happen to notice that the frequency of mass shootings has been increasing even though the "percentage of households with guns" has been decreasing?

One thing that "gun control" does is reduce the number of people who actually have guns.

Click to expand...

“ gun control” did not reduce the people who have guns.

Time has reduced the numbers of gun owners. The AWB was in the 1990s.

As time passes people see less need to own guns.

Did you notice the numbers of people killed in mass shootings before and after the AWB of the 1990s were more than before and after the ban.


In the years during the AWB (assault weapons ban) the average mass shooting killed almost six people. In the periods before and after the ban, between eight and nine people were killed in each mass shooting

minnie616 said:

Deaths by suicide needs to be adressed by a different multifaceted approach than mass shootings.

And no, I don’t want to ban handguns.

I want the AWB , like the one we had in the 1990s. It decreased mass shooting then and it could decrease mass shooting deaths again.

Click to expand...

You do realize the AWB in the 90s was incredibly easy to circumvent and that there is no functional difference between the guns on sale now and the guns that were sold during the ban.

Let's say we could somehow effectively ban "assault weapons", what happens when another mass shooting inevitably happens?

The idea that banning cosmetic features on a rifle somehow will decrease mass shootings is rather illogical

Nap said:

You do realize the AWB in the 90s was incredibly easy to circumvent and that there is no functional difference between the guns on sale now and the guns that were sold during the ban.

Let's say we could somehow effectively ban "assault weapons", what happens when another mass shooting inevitably happens?

The idea that banning cosmetic features on a rifle somehow will decrease mass shootings is rather illogical

Click to expand...

I deal with stats not your illogical argument.

The numbers of those killed in Mass Shootings Decreased during the AWB of the 1990s.

The number of people killed in mass shooting before and the AWB of the 1990s was 6 persons.

The number of those killed in each mass shooting before and after the AWB of the 1990s was 8 to 9 persons.

minnie616 said:

I deal with stats not your illogical argument.

The numbers of those killed in Mass Shootings Decreased during the AWB of the 1990s.

The number of people killed in mass shooting before and the AWB of the 1990s was 6 persons.

The number of those killed in each mass shooting before and after the AWB of the 1990s was 8 to 9 persons.

Click to expand...

You do realize you are using a logical fallacy right? Correlation does not imply causation.

Taking a barrel shroud or bayonet lug off a rifle does not make it less lethal. This is precisely what the 90s AWB did, it stated you could only have a certain number of attachments to be legal so manufactors simply took off the non essential attachments.

Nap said:

You do realize the AWB in the 90s was incredibly easy to circumvent and that there is no functional difference between the guns on sale now and the guns that were sold during the ban.

Let's say we could somehow effectively ban "assault weapons", what happens when another mass shooting inevitably happens?

The idea that banning cosmetic features on a rifle somehow will decrease mass shootings is rather illogical

Click to expand...

I have an idea that should appeal to everyone.


That way everyone could have what they wanted. The people who wanted guns could have them and the people who didn't want other people to use "assault weapons" to kill children would have what they wanted (it being rather difficult to hide a 45+ pound 1/2 inch diameter iron bar and having 45+ pounds torquing a gun while you are firing it does tend to interfere with accurate shooting).

TU Curmudgeon said:

I have an idea that should appeal to everyone.

<:idea:>Why not mandate that every gun in the country have a weight permanently affixed to is with the weight (in the form of a 1.2 inch diameter iron bar permanently attached to one side of the gun's muzzle) to be governed by multiplying the gun's calibre by 1.25[SUP]the capacity of its magazine/cylinder[/SUP] x 4oz.. That would mean that a gun of .25 cal without a magazine cylinder would have .25 x 1.25[SUP]0[/SUP] x 4oz = 0oz of weight attached, while a gun of .25 cal with a 30 round magazine would have .25 x 1.25[SUP]30[/SUP] x 4oz = 201.95oz (or 50.49lb) of weight attached.

A .25 cal with a 5 round magazine/cylinder would have .25 x 1.25[SUP]5[/SUP] x 4oz = 0.19oz of weight attached while a .45 would have .45 x 1.25[SUP]5[/SUP] x 4oz = 5.49oz of weight attached.

Your typical AR-15 with a 30 round magazine would have .227 x 1.25[SUP]30[/SUP] x 4oz = 183.37oz (or 45.84lb) of weight attached.</:idea:>​

That way everyone could have what they wanted. The people who wanted guns could have them and the people who didn't want other people to use "assault weapons" to kill children would have what they wanted (it being rather difficult to hide a 45+ pound 1/2 inch diameter iron bar and having 45+ pounds torquing a gun while you are firing it does tend to interfere with accurate shooting).

Click to expand...

Lol, is this a serious suggestion?

So let's say that I buy a rifle that comes with a 5 round magazine and your weight permanently attached, I get home and grab a 30 round magazine or a 100 round drum magazine for it. What now?

Even if we assume this would prevent people using "assault weapons" in mass shootings then they will simply use handguns. Measures that go after guns and prevent law abiding citizens from owning and carrying a gun only make matters worse not better. A group of unarmed people are just as powerless to defend themselves against a killer with a handgun or a rifle. If our goal is to deter or limit the deaths mass shootings then the logical solution is to have people at the location capable of stopping the shooter.

Nap said:

Lol, is this a serious suggestion?

Click to expand...

Oh ABSOTIVELY!!!

Besides it's actually more practical than attempting to "ban guns"

Nap said:

So let's say that I buy a rifle that comes with a 5 round magazine and your weight permanently attached, I get home and grab a 30 round magazine or a 100 round drum magazine for it. What now?

Click to expand...

Ahhh, there's the beauty of the hidden feature that I didn't tell you about. The "AKME Mk3. Secret Magazine Size Measuring Scale Machine" that is built into the weapon immediately reports the presence of an illegal magazine in the weapon to the Federal Magazine Police who immediately come to the location of the gun and weld on the appropriate additional weight. [NOTE - The AKME Mk. 3. SMSMSM automatically disables the gun until the FMS re-enable it after attaching the additional weight. Your .227 now has 278,591,054.16 lb of weight attached to it on a permanent basis. Fortunately it wasn't your .455 or you'd have to drag an additional 552,273,014.85 lbs of weight around.

Nap said:

Even if we assume this would prevent people using "assault weapons" in mass shootings then they will simply use handguns.

Click to expand...

Or explosives, or chemical weapons, or motor cars, or fire.

Nap said:

Measures that go after guns and prevent law abiding citizens from owning and carrying a gun only make matters worse not better. A group of unarmed people are just as powerless to defend themselves against a killer with a handgun or a rifle.

Click to expand...

As long as you make it clear that you are talking about "one-on-one" types of crime, I won't dispute that at all (well, not seriously, but I will point out that it isn't the panacea that some people would like you to think that it is).

Nap said:

If our goal is to deter or limit the deaths mass shootings then the logical solution is to have people at the location capable of stopping the shooter.

Click to expand...

And not to have an armed rabble shooting at anything that they think might be the loser who is trying to set the new American record for "Number of innocent people killed for a really idiotic reason"


Have you ever considered "Why not simply have a loaded gun chained to every school desk in America and have all the teachers wearing full body armour while carrying a full combat load for their fully automatic weapons?"?

I mean would you step into a classroom where there were 25+ armed students and a teacher wearing full body armour and carrying a fully automatic weapon and try to see if you could manage to "Beat The Big SIX-OH" and set a new American record?

Wouldn't that really cut down on mass school murders?

TU Curmudgeon said:

Oh ABSOTIVELY!!!

Besides it's actually more practical than attempting to "ban guns"



Ahhh, there's the beauty of the hidden feature that I didn't tell you about. The "AKME Mk3. Secret Magazine Size Measuring Scale Machine" that is built into the weapon immediately reports the presence of an illegal magazine in the weapon to the Federal Magazine Police who immediately come to the location of the gun and weld on the appropriate additional weight. [NOTE - The AKME Mk. 3. SMSMSM automatically disables the gun until the FMS re-enable it after attaching the additional weight. Your .227 now has 278,591,054.16 lb of weight attached to it on a permanent basis. Fortunately it wasn't your .455 or you'd have to drag an additional 552,273,014.85 lbs of weight around.




Or explosives, or chemical weapons, or motor cars, or fire.



As long as you make it clear that you are talking about "one-on-one" types of crime, I won't dispute that at all (well, not seriously, but I will point out that it isn't the panacea that some people would like you to think that it is).



And not to have an armed rabble shooting at anything that they think might be the loser who is trying to set the new American record for "Number of innocent people killed for a really idiotic reason"

- including other members of the armed rabble who think that they are shooting at the loser who is trying to set the new American record for "Number of innocent people killed for a really idiotic reason"

- when they are, in reality, shooting at other members of the armed rabble who think that they are shooting at the loser who is trying to set the new American record for "Number of innocent people killed for a really idiotic reason".​

Have you ever considered "Why not simply have a loaded gun chained to every school desk in America and have all the teachers wearing full body armour while carrying a full combat load for their fully automatic weapons?"?

I mean would you step into a classroom where there were 25+ armed students and a teacher wearing full body armour and carrying a fully automatic weapon and try to see if you could manage to "Beat The Big SIX-OH" and set a new American record?

Wouldn't that really cut down on mass school murders?

Click to expand...

Actually yes, or at least something similar. They make biometric safes that I am sure could made to recognize all staff at the school. Have one containing a pistol in every desk and/or strategic locations. If someone opens it outside of a school shooting situation then they are terminated. This way they will have someone at the location that can be armed at a moment's notice to deal with the situation.