Poll: Is there a solution to mass shootings?

[Frission]

the AR-15 was designed to be a selective fire assault rifle for the us armed forces and entered service in 1962 with the us airforce who designated it the m-16. people may use the thing for hunting but its designed from the outset to be a military weapon whose primary purpose is to kill human beings

That is true of the original AR-15, yes, but the currently available AR-15 is only capable of semi-automatic fire.

And, yes, it was originally designed for killing people, but I'm not sure why that should be such a black mark against it. If it was designed originally for, say, hunting gnu, people killed with it wouldn't be any less dead.

Read again. It was designed for military use.
It was designed for military use.

People would have been just as dead with a handgun, an acceptable weapon for self-deference; or a hunting rifle, which is used for hunting animals (to my knowledge). The first two are useful. They can also be used to defend against one or two assailants. Why would you need a military assault rifle unless you're planning to attack a gang? (In which case you should call the police). The fact that it's a military rifle raises questions. The only use it has is to kill multiple people.

It's like asking why small sticks of dynamite can be sold, but there's such a black mark against someone buying a vat of nitroglycerine.

It's all in the amount of firepower.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Read again. It was designed for military use.
It was designed for military use.

People would have been just as dead with a handgun, an acceptable weapon for self-deference; or a hunting rifle, which is used for hunting animals (to my knowledge). The first two are useful. They can also be used to defend against one or two assailants. Why would you need a military assault rifle unless you're planning to attack a gang? (In which case you should call the police). The fact that it's a military rifle raises questions. The only use it has is to kill multiple people.

It's like asking why small sticks of dynamite can be sold, but there's such a black mark against someone buying a vat of nitroglycerine.

It's all in the amount of firepower.

Again, it's not an assault rifle. It isn't a military weapon at all, it is a variant based on one.

Anyway, you speak of handguns. Are semi-automatic handguns designed for the military automatically worse than semi-automatic handguns designed for the civilian market that use the same cartridge, magazine and have the same length barrel?

Likewise, just because an AR-15 was based on a design intended for the military doesn't mean it is automatically more dangerous than a semiautomatic rifle that was not.

If you are talking about banning all semi-automatic rifles, fine, or ones fitting certain specific criteria, fine. But condemning one because the weapon it was based on some 50 years ago was intended for the military, not the civilian market does not make sense.

 

[Esotera]

Restrict guns that can fire more than a couple of shots so that they're only allowed to be kept in lockers at ranges. And provide a mental health service that actually has the resources and programmes to help all mentally ill people, rather than just a minority of them.

 

[Guffe]

Is there a solution? Of course there is!
solution number one: Make a law that everyone must wear a gun all the time
solution number two: Eradicate the human race = no more mass shootings

 

[Frission]

Again, it's not an assault rifle. It isn't a military weapon at all, it is a variant based on one.

Anyway, you speak of handguns. Are semi-automatic handguns designed for the military automatically worse than semi-automatic handguns designed for the civilian market that use the same cartridge, magazine and have the same length barrel?

Likewise, just because an AR-15 was based on a design intended for the military doesn't mean it is automatically more dangerous than a semiautomatic rifle that was not.

If you are talking about banning all semi-automatic rifles, fine, or ones fitting certain specific criteria, fine. But condemning one because the weapon it was based on some 50 years ago was intended for the military, not the civilian market does not make sense.

Huh. Okay. Ban the semi-automatic rifles. There's no reason to own one, even with self defense.

I have a question if you don't mind me asking. Are you the maker of the AR-15 or something? You're okay with all semi-automatic guns being made illegal, but you're not okay with one specific weapon having a bad reputation. Just a question.

 

[Risingblade]

Nope there will always be people who do horrible things like this. New laws are worthless if you can't enforce them, and considering all the cut backs in law enforcement eh things are going to get worse.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

The only way to prevent crime like that from happening is to revoke all personal liberty. I think stuff like this bothers people so much because it shows how easily one nut job can pull off a plan to murder a lot of people.
Honestly, it doesn't really happen as often as you'd expect, given how many people there are in this country and how easy it really is for someone to do it.
The knee jerk reaction from everyone now is to up security, revoke personal freedoms, and think that'll somehow keep it from happening again. You really can't do anything to curtail nut jobs who are going to do these things. Not without seriously taking away liberty from everyone else, and it honestly isn't worth it.
The amount of people killed by raving nut jobs is a drop in the bucket compared to everything else. Yes it is a tragedy, but blaming things isn't the answer.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Huh. Okay. Ban the semi-automatic rifles. There's no reason to own one, even with self defense.

I have a question if you don't mind me asking. Are you the maker of the AR-15 or something? You're okay with all semi-automatic guns being made illegal, but you're not okay with one specific weapon having a bad reputation. Just a question.

Well, the reputation of the AR-15 (at least in context) doesn't seem to be based on it's mechanism or cartridge or barrel length or any other feature that affects its performance.

A ban of weapons meeting certain criteria would at least be consistent, regardless if the AR-15 did or did not fall under that category.

 

[loc978]

Spoiler: space snip

So you propose we shut down most of a 14+ billion dollar domestic industry, cut out untold billions in imports... and then heavily police import and manufacture while repossessing millions upon millions of guns nationwide? All to prevent incidents that are, quite frankly (and I know it's too soon, but I think it needs to be said), a drop in the bucket next to killings with knives, much less handguns.

We're barely getting started and you are already putting words in my mouth? *groan*

Look, nobody is talking about repossession? What kind of nutbag would even come up with that argument when talking about the country with the most guns per capita on planet Earth? Certainly not me, so calm down.

And yes, I am talking about fucking up your gun industry--Oh, woe them!--do not worry, they'll still turn a hefty profit.

Or, you could just, you know, give up and admit that you can't do it--even though other countries have managed to do so. That would be, in my humble opinion, rather counter intuitive but, hey, I guess that if it gets hard it gets hard so, fuckit, why not? The world is fucked as it is and if you feel there's nothing you can do other than, say, throw more guns into the fray and teach people how to use them then fine. Plus, you can't trust politicians to be sensible about the whole thing and they'll just go nuts with the legislation and start taking rights away from gun owners so let's not trust those guys.

If it floats your boat, it floats your boat, I guess.

With corporate culture (which currently quite directly controls the federal government) the way it is, absolutely not gonna happen. I agree that said culture is completely fucked and if there are any worthy targets for all of our guns, they reside at the top of said culture...

But I'm sorry, you're thinking with pure idealism. That tends to be the first thing crushed in the real world.

Also, an assault weapons ban implies repossession of assault weapons. Stealing someone's rifle is hardly a speedbump in the way of a mass shooting.

I understand the whole "Aaaargh! Fuck this shit!" mentality but, again, nobody is talking about repossessing anything so let's not dwell on that 'cause even I admit that people may want to own automatic weapons.

Also, to you, what I say is idealism b/c you have never seen it happen and all you see are corrupt bureaucrats and corporatists, but there are countries in Europe where gun crime is considerably lower per capita than in the U.S. (way, way lower), so what that tells us is that somewhat sensible gun control can be done and that it is being done. So the issue of whether it works or not is mute because we already know that it does.

I mean, at some point most countries in the world happened to all be either monarchies or colonies until a bunch of the latter banded together in the new world and kinda decided on something different and go the way of an actual modern republic with presidents and shit--now, that was pretty fucking idealistic just considering when it happened.


Nobody is talking about ending gun crime but rather about diminishing the potential damage done by it. But, now, again, if you believe that Americans are utterly incapable to perform to the standards already set by considerable portions of the civilized world then, you know what, you win--because nothing ever gets done with that attitude and nothing ever will. You get to keep what you have, so that's that.

EDIT: On the idealism note: I am in my late twenties and hardly a sappy, idealistic person, especially considering that where I'm from your gun crime is fucking peanuts. All I'm trying to do is argue based on stuff we already know has been done and go from there.

Implied it before and I'll say it straight out this time: gun control on the level you're talking has never been done in an industrialized nation the size of the US. It works well in Germany (relatively, anyway. About half as well as it works in Spain. Ever try drawing a parallel between manufacture of guns in a country and the rate of firearm homicides in said country? Interesting stuff) because the place is the size of Montana (albeit with 80 million people in it). It works in the UK because they're small, isolated and barely manufacture guns. You know where it doesn't work? Russia. Where they have to enforce a near totalitarian rule to make it work? China.

I agree the US needs a little regulation, but assault rifles aren't the problem. Black market trade, specifically of cheap handguns in large cities, is the problem.

As an aside on the idealism note... how many extreme right-wing redneck nutjobs from the US have you talked to? Because there are a lot of them. A whole lot... and they tend to be extremely closed-minded. My "fuck it" attitude comes from years of talking to such people. They tend not to give a damn what happens to people they don't know, and I know over ten of 'em personally who claim if they had been in that movie theater the damage would have been much less because the guy would have gotten a .45 between the eyes by his second shot.
Having seen combat, I know better than to think that's true (I would have been diving for cover and calling 911, the pistol in my waistband be damned... that asshole had body armor)... but it's a very common attitude here... and I live in a very liberal part of a very liberal state.

Spoiler: space snip

Snip

So you propose we shut down most of a 14+ billion dollar domestic industry, cut out untold billions in imports... and then heavily police import and manufacture while repossessing millions upon millions of guns nationwide? All to prevent incidents that are, quite frankly (and I know it's too soon, but I think it needs to be said), a drop in the bucket next to killings with knives, much less handguns.

If our economy is that heavily reliant on machines of death to stay functioning we fucking deserve to go under. That's why I'm leaving the US as soon as I can.

What exactly do all these people need assualt rifles for anyway? You don't hunt with an assualt rifle, they aren't exactly the go to weapon for home defense. They were designed for WAR: killing people efficiently. What conscionable reason could a domestic US citizen with no intent to break the law or cause harm have for buying an AR15 semi auto, like James Holmes did, legally, before his mass shooting?

It seems like we wouldn't even have to ban all guns, just the absurdly overpowered ones that nobody should have any use for to begin with. And this may come as a shock to some, but there are such things as NON-lethal weapons for protection as well.
You know, for when you just want subdue someone, not deliver your own brand of justice.

As I said before, I know it's too soon, but the statistics still stand. Mass shootings like the one that happened recently in Colorado are very, very small potatoes next to handgun shootings in large cities. Going to the effort to ban all assault weapons because some nutjob occasionally gets ahold of one is missing the bigger issue, preventing far fewer deaths than putting those resources into curbing black market handgun trade.
I mean, unless you count the deaths of suburbanites in a movie theater as a worse tragedy than the deaths of a far greater number of inner city people who use mass transit. But that's an even more fucked up cultural problem we have here. A very uncomfortable one.

Of course, this is all completely hypothetical. Big money and the NRA will never let the "Shall not be infringed" bit of the second amendment go. As stupid an excuse as it is, it's the one that holds up best in court. But that's yet another cultural issue that's even more fucked up than the last one.

 

[Chunga the Great]

Cue hordes of uninformed knee-jerk reactions; "Well if Americans weren't so stupid and if they couldn't just walk down the street and buy an AK-47 this wouldn't have happened! Of course I know what I'm talking about, I read some wikipedia articles and they told me this happens ALL THE TIME!"

 

[In Search of Username]

As with most major problems, there's no perfect 'solution', you can only minimise how often it happens and the harm done by it. Doesn't mean you shouldn't keep trying to do something about it - just don't take the easy route by blaming guns, or violent games, or whatever.

 

[SecondPrize]

Getting really sick of the "We can't make everything 100% safe so there's no point in gun control argument."
Because, you're absolutely right, some people will pick up a knife if they can't get a gun, now explain why that means we should leave access to guns as is?

 

[Hagi]

Nope, you can't.

Not whilst every idiot believes their own personal solutions have any validity to the problem.

We might be able to come to some real progress though if everyone, save those that spend 40 hours a week focussing on all the information related to this problem, just shut up and let go of the notion that if something's said enough it'll somehow become true.

 

[Angie7F]

Gun control doesnt mean making people follow the law against guns. It means to not have any lying around and making it almost impossible to get your hands on them.

I feel sorry for people living in a country where they feel they have to own guns to protect their own houses...

 

[MrHide-Patten]

Convincing crazy gun nuts to put that gun in their mouth first, before testing it out on others. The only way of truly stopping mass shootings is to invent a time machine and kill the guy who invented the gun... then go ahead a little more, get abortions the A-Okay, and convince Mrs. Bieber that the kid will grow up retarded and to raise a kid with such a significant handicap is a form of cruel and unusual punishment... but yeah, guns, tonnes of uses in every day life.

 

[Hoplon]

Until we understand why people do this we won't ever be able to do anything effective. Even then I doubt there is much of anything people can do.

For instance Switzerland has more automatic weapons than it had people and those weapons are in peoples homes yet doesn't seem to have this happen. The UK where at the time you couldn't get much more than a double barrel shot gun or a target pistol some one walking in to a primary school and shoots a lot of kids.

It's not about availability of guns. It never has been.

 

[nexus]

Honestly I'm pretty disgusted by people who jump on gun control any chance they get. People who politicize everything are the scum of the Earth. You're worse than advertisers and marketers.

Gun control will not stop these high-profile 'massacre' incidents. All these cases involve the extreme intent to kill as many people as possible, and they always involve explosives as a secondary measure. These people, if they couldn't get legal access to firearms, would just get them anyway or decide to go the "bigger bomb" route.

Their goal isn't to "kill as many people with guns", their goal is to just kill people period. Anders Breivik's most dangerous weapon was misdirection, not a gun. Apparently he was a real magician because he's seemed to have misdirected everyone to completely forget about the incident. Where is all the hurr duur nonsense on limiting firearms in Norway, where 69 people were killed by one individual? Oh that's right, it's not about that, it's only about Amurika hurr duurr.

Whenever this comes up, it's usually not even about the "massacre" or the people killed, because as soon as these people are challenged they'll start reverting to "other gun statistics", which means their sole intention is to exploit tragedy for political and ideological purposes. Scum of the Earth.

 

[nexus]

The meat and potatoes of the matter is that countries with strict gun control don't have an issue with shootings. Mass or otherwise.

What's that about cognitive bias?

 

[Thaluikhain]

yes being a military designed weapon specifically made to kill humans does make it inherently more dangerous. its got a large capacity clip thats very fast to change, the 5.56mm round is a military round thats designed to tumble and break up causing as much damage as possible to human targets. its not a hunting weapon and there is no reason for a civilian outside of a museum to own a military weapon.

seriously if you think you actually need an assault rifle for home defense then you have more to worry about than the odd burglar

No, that's more or less entirely wrong.

Again, the AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is not in military use either.

It is fed from a detachable magazine, not a clip.

It uses the 5.56mm round, yes, which, BTW, is almost identical to the .223 Remington it was derived from, which was designed for hunting. You can fire .223 from an AR-15 if you want.

The 5.56mm round was not especially designed to tumble, it does this because all bullets do, due to their shape.

No 5.56mm rounds used by military forces are designed to fragment, as this was expressly forbidden under the Hague convention several decades before the 5.56mm round was developed.

EDIT: Expanding or fragmenting bullets are legal in most parts of the US. This is a totally seperate issue to what weapon they are fired from, however.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

Nope, there's nothing to prevent such things from happening.