1. Hello Guest,

    We wanted to let you know that the NXS17 templates and viewers have been released!

    Grab them HERE
  2. Hello Guest,

    We wanted to let you know that besides the NXS17 templates and viewers, now we have released the NXS17 Mod as well!

    Grab the latest files HERE
  3. Hello Guest,

    We wanted to let you know that we are trying out a new feature at SRD. Your feedback is needed!

    Read more about the chatbox HERE
  4. Hello Guest,

    We are gauging interest in starting an online racing league.

    Please take a moment and give your vote HERE. Thanks!

Mass Shootings....

Discussion in 'Politics/Religion' started by MattyO, Aug 5, 2019.

  1. mtblillie

    mtblillie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    996
    Likes Received:
    944
    I get what you are saying, but the catch is that while banning these things might make a shooter a little less efficient (and I mean, just only a little, it doesn't take much to reload, even on a hunting rifle), it doesn't make them less lethal. I really don't mean any offense, but from where I stand this is the "raised to fear" vs the "raised to respect" attitude.
     
  2. hiarcracing

    hiarcracing Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    173
    Likes Received:
    299
    Dude in Dayton killed 9 people and injured 27 all in less than a minute before he got shot by police. If we can do anything to limit that, even if it’s just a little bit, i feel like it’s better than nothing. I think the people getting shot would echo that
     
  3. mtblillie

    mtblillie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    996
    Likes Received:
    944
    That's the thing that people don't understand, it is unlikely that you can limit that. Several states have laws that limit magazine size and things like that, it doesn't really do much difference. Any firearm short of a muzzle loader can be reloaded in seconds, and frankly magazines like the one you showed have a tendency to jam, whereas a short magazine can be changed in seconds without missing much beat.
    I fully understand why people grasp at things like this, but I'm telling you it doesn't change anything, not really. I'm not trying to tell you which way to go, I'm just saying this kind of action without understanding is a part of what widens the divide between those taught to fear and those taught to respect.
     
  4. RacerXero84

    RacerXero84 Obnoxious old fart

    Messages:
    3,759
    Likes Received:
    4,782
    Except an AR15 is less powerful and overall less lethal than most actual hunting rifles. Going back to "banning because it looks aggressive".

    You're right. Mass shootings won't happen. So they will instead use other mediums: cars, planes, explosives (really easy to make, took a military class on that before heading into Iraq), knives, acid, etc etc etc.

    But hey, the people weren't shot right? Here's the thing: prohibition didn't work. Neither will a 'gun ban'. Human nature.
     
    4WideRacing likes this.
  5. Mystical

    Mystical Always 110%

    Messages:
    4,020
    Likes Received:
    5,804
    There are many factors some already mentioned in here. Another aspect is we are more online than ever and while it is a great way for people to connect with others it also allows those mentally unstable or not right to have echo chambered filled areas. This only perpetuates their beliefs and paranoia even worse. Just look at all those soccer moms who won't vaccinate their kids because they are part of some facebook group that says it'll kill their kids or its ok if their kids go to school even it it gets other kids sick.

    Point being, as responsible as the individuals should be held, companies like facebook that allow these groups and posts to stay should be held accountable for not taking action just as much. Their excuse is they are too big but it is very clear these social media sites don't want to spend the extra for monitoring when it would hurt their bottom line. To them so what if a couple 100 get killed by some mass shooting, the ad revenue they raked in from those page views was so worth it! /s.

    As long as the mentally ill are able to find 'safe havens' online where they can perpetuate their hate or misguided values unchecked it will only reinforce their stance to carry out their motives more. Banning websites, media, or forums is not going to stop it but I believe it is just one of the many pieces of the puzzle for why it occurs. How many times have you heard after one of these events "the attackers facebook and twitter was then terminated from the site after evidence showing their motives were found" It may seem like this is just an 'America' problem but social media has caused violence across the world thanks to them (just look at the New Zealand shooter leaving a vid on facebook for example). For anyone that trusts these social media sites to 'monitor' themselves or doesn't believe they have a part to play I leave you with this.


     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2019
    pomcat and mtblillie like this.
  6. mtblillie

    mtblillie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    996
    Likes Received:
    944
    ^^^ my biggest fear of this is giving Government control over what content I can and can't see online. And no, I'm not talking about porn. I mean it is good intention to give them the power to ban stuff that is harmful, but who decides what is harmful? If you give them this power, even with public input, that could be going down a dark road. The biggest hurtle with creating laws that restrict things is that it tightens the noose on our rights of freedom. I'm not arguing that there should be no restrictions, my point is that someone somewhere is going to not like having certain rights taken away. If you get enough people on that side of the fence, then there is a never ending battle between people that don't want those rights taken away and those that think it is worth it. Whenever a law is finally passed that puts restrictions in place, it can go either way. An example might be placing speed limits on roads. There was a time when there were no speed limits, and car accidents were a serious problem. Many people didn't want that freedom taken away, but in the end accidents declined and now we are used to speed limits, though people still test those limits regularly. Another example is prohibition, which created more problems than it solved. Just something to consider.
     
    MrDude68 likes this.
  7. MrDude68

    MrDude68 Occasional Backwards Driver

    Messages:
    2,191
    Likes Received:
    2,771
    This is where you end up running into abuse of those laws and removal/censorship of material simply because it doesn't fall in line with certain political ideologies, under the guise that it's "dangerous." Giving the government the power to control what you can and can't see is a very dark road indeed.
     
  8. Mystical

    Mystical Always 110%

    Messages:
    4,020
    Likes Received:
    5,804
    I'm not saying I want the Government to get involved at all except for possibly heavily fining these social media companies for negligence is all. This would force these companies to hire more people to be able to look out for the dangerous/questionable posts/groups or have better reporting tools for users to use.

    The last thing I'd want is the Government controlling what and when we can view on the internet. It would be impossible to completely remove all the bad stuff but these companies that host social media content are definitely not doing as much as they could to prevent them from growing out of control and it would definitely at the very least reduce incidents.
     
    pomcat and mtblillie like this.
  9. Ryan81398

    Ryan81398 93 Wins

    Messages:
    3,388
    Likes Received:
    710
    This is an extremely complicated issue. There's some solution somewhere, but fuck if I know what it is. I just know that way too many people are dying and very little is being done about it.

    Taking all guns away is not only unrealistic, it's not gonna help the situation. I'm not a huge fan of guns, but it's not my place to tell people not to use them. Maybe they should tighten up the restrictions, maybe that wouldn't help. I don't know. I'm just greatly disappointed that people in this country have to be constantly fearful that something like this could happen.
     
    mtblillie, Tetronix and EarnhardtFan like this.
  10. 4WideRacing

    4WideRacing Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    15,127
    Likes Received:
    4,452
    The best way to stop these mass (and non-mass) shootings is get as many law abiding citizens carrying guns as you can. The more good people who have guns the higher the chance that the bad people aren't going to take the risk of shooting people because of maybe being taken out. If these bad people do still go ahead with the shooting it's much more likely that they will be taken out quicker and do less damage
     
  11. mtblillie

    mtblillie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    996
    Likes Received:
    944
    I currently live in an area where almost everyone carries a gun and there are very few violent shootings (though they do happen). But, on the flip side to this would never work in places like California. Again, it's that fear the gun vs respect the gun sort of thing. It's not just that people fear them, it's also that they don't know how to respect them.
     
    MrDude68 likes this.
  12. MrDude68

    MrDude68 Occasional Backwards Driver

    Messages:
    2,191
    Likes Received:
    2,771
    I'm all for less soft targets. Let people carry in more public spaces. There is no good reason not to let normal adults carry concealed weapons in places like schools and churches.

    And how about creating some sort of penalty to stop the news media from printing the shooter's name and picture all over the place every time this happens? These shooters always seem to like the recognition, and because identifying the killer generates public interest, the media currently has every incentive to do so. Can't we put an end to that?
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2019
  13. jacobc62

    jacobc62 The OG NASCAR Tiger.

    Messages:
    4,158
    Likes Received:
    3,108
    Technically, the First Amendment protects the media. Trying to impose some sort of penalty for identifying the killer(s) would not only be spun within a web that contains a mixture of people (mostly the media) spouting "constitutional violation" and the media also demonizing/"witch hunting" those in favor of said penalty, but also would probably get struck down very quickly due to the media's influence on modern American politics.

    As for a possible solution, it is very tricky to find one, but I'm sure there is at least a couple of solutions hat could theoretically work.

    My stance on everything? I'm kind of inbetween everything. I'm all for people being allowed to carry handguns, shotguns, and rifles. However, I do feel as though the process of getting said weapon should be strict, thorough, and maybe help deter anyone looking to get a weapon for pure malice. Also crack down on the illegal sales of firearms in the country, as well as thorough checks of firearms brought into (or out of) the country by anyone and everyone, thus being able to trace any sources of weapons in case a shooting happens, or something of that sort.
     
  14. nascarfreak88

    nascarfreak88 Sarcasmus pessimus

    Messages:
    2,715
    Likes Received:
    1,817
    So, as a social scientist/psychological scientist myself (I have a bachelors degree in psychology, a masters degree in social psychology, and am currently three years into earning a PhD in interdisciplinary social psychology. I have taught university courses in sociology of deviance [which substantially includes crime] and psychological research methods among others but that's not important to this discussion), I have to respond to these points. There is strong evidence to suggest that this is not the case, and in fact the implications of this evidence on a macro scale could lead to a more aggressive and "on edge" populace. This is called the "weapons effect." There was a famous study conducted in the 1960's in which participants were angered by a confederate (that is, an actor who is in on the study). These participants were then seated at a table that had either a shotgun and a revolver (experimental condition) or a badminton racket and a shuttlecock (control condition) on it. These items were explained to be part of a previous experiment and the experimenters forgot to put them away. The participant then was told to determine a level of electric shock to give the confederate who had angered them previously. The shocks were used to measure aggression. Those who saw the weapons on the table showed more aggression than those who saw the badminton equipment.

    Correlational research* also has shown that those who carry a firearm in their car are more likely to drive aggressively (i.e. making obscene gestures, tailgating). This effect has been replicated recently in a driving simulation experiment* to establish causal inference. We find the same effect.

    A 1990 review** of 56 published studies confirmed that the sight of firearms increases aggression. A meta analysis** published last year looked at 78 other studies and found strong support for the weapons effect, specifically that it increases the accessibility of aggressive thoughts and hostile appraisals. Basically, people can more easily access aggressive thoughts and for lack of better words have a lower threshold on what they consider as hostile when in the proximity of/are exposed to a firearm. Albeit more research is needed on the link between weapons and aggression in angered participants, especially in field settings, the weapons effect is pretty reliable in the hundreds of studies that have tested it.

    I can cite and provide these studies I referenced if anyone insists.

    * While correlation does not imply causation, correlational research can be used to establish links to be studied further. Experiments are the gold standard in establishing causation, as they establish causal precedence and better control for outside factors.

    **A systematic review answers a research question by collecting and summarizing empirical evidence. A meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of these studies.

    So what's next? Let's go to video games. A lot of the research on the link between video games and violence is mixed. However, most of that research focuses on pediatric children rather than crime perpetrated by adults. In those cases, yes we have found that video game exposure increases aggressive behavior in children. But when we look at large analyses of violent crime and violent video game exposure in adults, we find no evidence of this effect. If violent video games cause violent behavior, we should see spikes in crime rates as more people play violent video games. This is not the case, and in fact the violent crime rate is trending downward (and in recent years hit record lows) relative to the (presumable) increase in violent video game accessibility. In fact, recent evidence suggests that as more adolescents play video games, rates of adolescent violence go down. Again, can cite and provide some studies.

    *end science, begin personal convictions*

    Some have brought up mental health in this thread. This is a valid concern; mental health care in this country is staggeringly inadequate, particularly in this internet age, wherein there exists enclaves of the most hateful people free to spread their intentions of resentment and violence. I would like to see a revamped and modernized push for something like the Mental Health Systems Act. This was an act which sought greater integration of programs for people with mental illness, later discarded by Reagan basically eliminating these services (fwiw when he was governor of California, Reagan's governance released more than half of the state's mental hospital patients and passed a law that abolished involuntary hospitalization of people struggling with mental illness, starting a national trend of de-institutionalization from which, I would argue, the nation has not recovered).

    Does that mean the solution exists in banning these enclaves? I don't know. That is inherently a question of "First Amendment vs. safety." All I can say is I think it would not be irrational for law enforcement to monitor more closely these enclaves, and certain individuals within these enclaves, and exercise due diligence to flag potential domestic terrorists (especially white supremacists given the current discord). To what extent? I cannot say, I'm not particularly informed on the resources the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have to devote to this type of task, other than this administration shot down attempts by Homeland Security to exert a greater focus on domestic terrorism.

    However, given that most perpetrators of mass shootings are unlikely to have a history of mental illness (either because they are not hospitalized or because they are too young for it to be observable), that is not my #1 concern. Can provide studies for this point as well.

    Now I'll go down the rabbit hole and address guns, which yes, are the primary enablers of this type of violence (can cite). Yes, I think there is no way to completely end gun violence - to bring gun violence rates to net zero, and I think it is foolish to think otherwise. However, I find this notion of "well it isn't gonna stop so fuck it" very disingenuous and lazy. There are approximately 32,000 gun deaths per year (homicides, suicides, accidents, you name it) in the United States. That is a monumental number compared to the developed world. Take Menlo Park in CA, wipe it off the map, and that's the number you'd get. It is a human rights crisis according to Amnesty International. People are afraid to and are warned not to travel to the United States because of rampant gun violence. Why on earth would we not try to enact policy with the intention of reducing the rates of gun deaths, including mass shootings?

    Yes, the second amendment exists - yes, I think people have the right to own firearms. But can we not implement basic regulations (i.e. the third word in the amendment in question) to try to reduce the amount of gun deaths, and by proximity mass shootings? I believe in these so-called "common sense" gun reforms:
    -preventing people with mental illnesses from purchasing firearms
    -requiring compulsory background checks and closing the gun show loophole
    -Disallowing people on the no-fly and/or terrorist watch list from obtaining a firearm
    -Creating a federal database to track gun sales
    -Banning assault-style weapons (i.e. those that are semi-automatic with a pistol grip capable of accepting a large, detachable magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use - the same language used by the DOJ in the 90s).
    -Banning high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds

    What do I not believe in?

    -Allowing people to carry concealed weapons in more places (see the above science section)
    -Allowing teachers to carry firearms (see the above science section)
    -Shortening wait periods
    -Concealed carry without a permit.

    Admittedly, this is not a bulleted (pun intended) list that I made up. This is a list from a Pew Research study that surveyed a nationally representative sample of Americans in 2017 (for those who don't know, Pew Research is basically the gold standard in survey research in the academic community). Turns out, Americans agree with me. Respectively in the order I brought it up:
    -Mentally ill? 89% agree
    -Background checks? 84% agree
    -No-fly and other watch lists? 83% agree
    -Tracking? 71% agree
    -Assault-style weapons? 68% agree
    -High capacity mags? 65% agree
    -More concealed carry? 46% agree
    -Teachers? 45% agree
    -Wait periods? 36% agree
    -No permit? 19% agree

    In general, over half of the country says gun laws should be stricter.

    Here is the survey report in question: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/views-on-gun-policy/

    In a proper democracy, these notions would already have been in place. Which brings me to my main point of this long-winded spiel: Get. The. NRA. And. Special. Interests. Out. Of. Buying. Those. In. Power. On gun laws, the NRA, while once wholesome and well-intentioned, has morphed into a rapacious organization concerned only about profits from selling firearms, intent now on spending tremendous resources to buy politicians into voting in its favor whilst not giving two shits about the safety of the American public. They successfully lambaste and prevent these common sense reforms whilst simultaneously successfully pushing through laws that make obtaining firearms and firearm accessories easier much to the chagrin of the American public, and more importantly American law enforcement (see their battle for suppressors for something that, in my opinion, is particularly egregious). Don't believe me? They shot down all six of those "common-sense" proposals I mentioned earlier in the IMMEDIATE aftermath of children being slaughtered at Sandy Hook.

    How can we resolve this? Look into the funding records of not only national, but even more importantly your local politicians. Do ballot initiatives so you could circle around the politician route. Vote against those in power who take money from an organization who cares fuck all about whether you live or die.

    /rant over
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2019
  15. mtblillie

    mtblillie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    996
    Likes Received:
    944
    This doesn't actually surprise me. The question is how does this translate into a social impact? There is this fear from many camps that anyone with a gun is a threat. While I can agree that guns are dangerous and any person who is willing to use a firearm maliciously is a threat, there are thousands of people across the US that carry guns and are not threatening to others. "More aggressive" is a very general statement. Do you mean, dangerous to people in general? To specific people? More likely to commit acts of violence against people? More likely to murder another person? Studies are great, but they don't tell you every nuance of what you are studying. Did the people have a history of owning or operating firearms, if so is it a rich history where they are well experienced? As I've said before, I live in an area where many people carry guns and gun violence is much more minimal than other areas, so while I believe the study met it's research goals and is true to as a degree as it is possible to be, I don't see it translated into the real world the way that you are implying.

    You are kidding me right? I can see certain areas being considered dangerous by travelers in general, but the entire country? That is just silly. It has always amazed that people will be afraid of something that has a slim chance of happening but don't give a second thought to being hit by a car or dying in a car crash, which has such a higher likelihood of occurring.

    Most of what you said I can agree with, or at least be willing to accept as a compromise to try and make improvements:

    These I can get behind. I own a firearm, and don't believe that I should be barred from owning one because someone else is afraid, not when I have done nothing wrong. But at the same time I think it is reasonable to take responsibility for our gun culture and there are some things we can do to help without sacrificing our general right to own guns.

    This one I'm on the fence about. I don't disagree with the intention, nor do I think there is anything wrong with feds keeping an eye on sales to ensure that everything is on the up and up, but I worry that this will cause more problems than it solves. Creating a database for gun sales is essentially creating a watch list for gun owners. "You bought a gun so now you are a potential threat." That just doesn't sit well with me. Too many things can go wrong with it. I would feel safer if an independent impartial organization oversaw it, rather than a law enforcement agency.

    This is common from people who know nothing about firearms. I don't mean that to offend you, there isn't anything wrong with having no interest in firearms are wanting to learn more about them, and you don't have to know about them to have an opinion about them. But something to think about: all guns are designed for assault. All firearms were designed first and foremost for military action, and were later found to have practical civilian use. Having a detachable magazine, pistol grip, or magazine exceeding 10 rounds has no impact on the effect of a violent shooting. A person with an 8 round internal magazine bolt action rifle can shoot just as effectively and reload just as quickly as any other firearm. I would also point out that modern pistols also fall into your designation of an "assault weapon" as well. The one firearm I own has a pistol grip (technically) and detachable magazines carrying more than 10 rounds. A revolver, which does not have detachable magazines and can only carry 5-8 rounds (depending on model) would not fit into that category, but would be no less lethal or no more difficult to reload quickly.

    The one area that I think gun laws get right are fully automatic weapons and devices that allow for automatic fire. The difference is the volume of fire that a full auto rifle or belt fed weapon can produce and (key word here) maintain over a longer period of time is a game changer in military action, let alone the civilian world, though I know some will still disagree with me there.

    As for not allowing people to legally carry in certain areas, there is a lot of hot debate on that. For one thing, many shootings occur in areas where it is illegal for responsible gun owners to carry, whether concealed or not. There is a lot of talk about if responsible people were allowed to carry in these locations, maybe these violent actions would not have occurred, or at least not to the extent that they did. There is no way to know for sure, but it is possible, as there have been other instances where armed civilians seemingly prevented violent crimes (though most of these cases are against smaller crimes such as robbery, rather than intent on mass shootings). Having locations that are "gun free zones" are not meant to protect citizens from gun violence, they are meant to keep people from open carrying and scaring other people in areas where people group together and/or there are generally children present. It is also a hope that it will prevent accidental shootings as well. It is illegal to carry in bars and many restaurants due to alcohol consumption, which I think is fair, as the risk of accidental shooting is more likely to outweigh the prevention of a violent crime. For the other locations, however, I'm not sure that preventing someone who is legally licensed to conceal carry from carrying a firearm is actually benefiting anything, and that the reward for allowing them to carry in gun free zones (other than circumstances such as liquor sales as mentioned before) is more likely to outweigh the potential risk, at least in my opinion (though I would still recommend that open carrying continue to be illegal in these areas).

    Again, this is something that is said by people that have little or no knowledge about firearms. Suppressors are not like they are in the movies. I can't shoot someone on the street with a suppressor and not wake everybody up. I can't shoot somebody in a park and not have everyone running for cover. Suppressors simply make the noise of a gunshot quieter. And by quieter, I mean to a decibel level that doesn't pop my eardrum, I don't mean whisper quiet. Why do you think gun owners want suppressors? So they can go around shooting people and not get caught? No. They want suppressors so they don't go deaf target shooting or hunting.

    Something to think about: Gun violence has always been a problem in America, since our founding. During the 1920s, when crime was exploding, corruption in the various levels of government was common, and with the invention of automatic fire, gun violence took on a new meaning. But even then, going into a a public area and shooting people for no other reason than to kill as many innocent people as you could, was not very common. Not like it is today. Why is that? If we look at tightening gun laws, will that really solve our problem, or is that just putting a bandaid on a festering wound? That is the ultimate question that I want answered. I'm all for sensible gun laws, but I don't think the problem will end there.
     
    nascarfreak88 and MrDude68 like this.
  16. MrDude68

    MrDude68 Occasional Backwards Driver

    Messages:
    2,191
    Likes Received:
    2,771
    Let me say first that I appreciate your detailed reply. However, I do still have a rebuttal...

    The cited research says that the sight of a firearm can make people anxious or increase aggression. That is a completely understandable and fair point. In fact, I could probably conduct the same study and discover that the same is generally true about the sight of MAGA hats, lol. BUT, the cited research requires that the gun be on open display, and because of this, it misses the point of concealed carry entirely... which is that the gun is concealed. We're not talking about a weapon on the table. We're talking about a weapon fully underneath the clothing of a responsible, law-abiding citizen.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2019
    nascarfreak88 likes this.
  17. canadienhits

    canadienhits The Dominator, Cup champ.

    Messages:
    12,967
    Likes Received:
    7,814
    I promised myself I'd never get in a political debate on here ever again, but....

    Look, nothing is going to get done. Let me repeat this NOTHING. No one will change a damn thing. If it didn't change when 1st graders got killed, then it's not going to now, or maybe ever. I sound cynical..yes I am, but I am realistic. We're just going to keep seeing mass shootings, people will get outraged, it will fade from the press, people will forget, and then one happens and the cycle starts all over again. And again, and again. The only ones that will remember will be the victims and those left behind.
     
  18. MrDude68

    MrDude68 Occasional Backwards Driver

    Messages:
    2,191
    Likes Received:
    2,771
    I guess... I mean, I see what you're saying but I'm still skeptical of the implications.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2019
  19. nascarfreak88

    nascarfreak88 Sarcasmus pessimus

    Messages:
    2,715
    Likes Received:
    1,817
    To an extent, yes to all. We have found fairly consistently that firearm assaults are more likely to occur in states with more gun accessibility than those with less. We've found since the 80's that an armed home is not a safer home, such that having a firearm in the home is linked to increased odds of both homicide and suicide. These odds have fluctuated overtime and vary study to study, but the effect consistency replicates to this day. It could be argued perhaps that the causes are reversed, such that surges in violent crime lead people to buy guns, and guns themselves do not create the surge in violent crime. Yet if this were the case, gun purchases would increase coinciding with all types of violence. In reality, this does not happen.

    If we want to look at the experimental research I mentioned earlier, there are theoretical reasons to suspect that more aggressive behavior, however it was operationalized in any of these studies, can yield a greater probability of violence (and when I say "theoretical," I mean in the scientific sense. Not in how the general population has the tendency to use the term when they really mean "hypothesis").

    Any one empirical study? Correct, they almost always do not. Any given study itself will examine one specific nuance. They represent one small piece in the puzzle. That is why we conduct systematic reviews and meta-analyses like those I mentioned earlier to build the entire puzzle by synthesizing a vast number of studies conducted to draw much more broad, reliable conclusions. The broad conclusion in this case is that the weapons effect is quite robust.

    These are factors that scientists can control for. Whether or not they actually did, I am not confident in saying definitively, though I can check back at a few of these studies and see if they did.

    No, I'm not kidding. Just after these two recent shootings, Venezuela, Uruguay, and Japan issued travel advisories to its citizens. Uruguay warned not to go to places with large crowds (e.g. concerts, sporting events), Venezuela and Japan more generally warned to avoid travel to the US because of its gun culture. Venezuela's of course is likely politically motivated (given recent bouts of economic sanctions imposed on them by the US), but there is no clear reason to suspect the same from Uruguay and Japan. This is all in addition to long-standing travel advisories imposed by other nations such as Australia, New Zealand, and the Netherlands for the same reason.

    Take it for what its worth, but anecdotally, I have a friend in Australia, one in France, and a couple family friends in England. My Australian friend is adamant about not travelling to the US right now. One of my English family friends said they would probably be on edge if they came (fwiw he contacted me after Vegas to be sure I was ok since I was in Reno at the time, and everybody fails to believe that Reno and Vegas are rather far from each other. Asked when he was visiting the States and he gave me that answer). My French friend is indifferent.

    Be careful about your assumptions. Before I moved out of state I would go on shooting trips with my family at least twice a year, and still periodically do so when I go back and see my grandfather (an Army vet who owns a number of firearms). I've shot all kinds of weapons - pistols, revolvers, shotguns (skeet shooting is a favorite past time of mine), large rifles, AR's. I can tell you my favorite weapon I've ever shot is an M1 (I can also tell you being hit in the face by the magazine cartridge is not a fun experience but I digress). Can take apart and put back together that weapon blindfolded if I wanted to. The only reason I don't own a firearm right now is because I have the foresight enough to realize that mental health afflictions are rampant in the grad student population. So, I would at least like to think I have at minimum a basic understanding about firearms.

    The fact that I love shooting and that I think some of the things I've shot should not be available for the public to own are not mutually exclusive.

    Yes. That is why nowadays we have firearms designed and designated for specific purposes. Some are designed for hunting, some for recreation, some for self-defense, some for law enforcement, and some for combat. And yes, all firearms are made for some type of assault. But what or who is the intended target (or presumable intended target if you prefer) of the assault the firearm is designed to inflict upon? In some cases, it is animals, in some it is a target, and in some, yes, it is people. Can further restrictions be placed on certain designs of firearms the public is allowed to have without impinging on its right to own firearms? Yes, I think so. We already do this in a number of ways.

    This I find hard to believe without evidence. This is just my conjecture, but presumably if a person is spending more time reloading and more time chambering a round, the less time they are spending firing, and thus presumably the lower the casualty count will be, at least in a mass shooting situation. If there is scientific evidence to the contrary, I will gladly retract my conjecturing.

    Yes indeed, some do. I find it perfectly acceptable for some to be included in that definition, and thus some to be disallowed. That was the case during the ban in the late 90s. And re: the point about revolvers, perhaps. Depends on the revolver: is it a double- or single-action? Is the operator using a speedloader? This, admittedly, is a gray area to me. What should be done about it? I do not know.

    And since I brought up the AWB, I might as well touch upon its effects during the time it was in place. Did it have an impact on crime? Back to science again, is hard to say, particularly given the various loopholes contained therein. The findings are a little bit mixed. Some research says it did have an effect on reducing homicide but it was rather small, yet most says it had no effect on homicide. I would say it is reasonable to conclude that there was no effect. Granted.

    Did it have an effect on mass shootings? The evidence points to yes, it is likely it did. Two major studies make this suggestion (which again, I can provide). The first is a comparative analysis between the US and Australia. The study concludes that "[f]or both Australia and the USA, the enactment of restrictive firearm regulations coincided with a noticeable decline in mass shooting incidents and fatalities." (Lemieux, Prenzler, & Bricknell, 2015). They later say while mass shootings in Australia completely stopped since the enactment of their regulations in 1996*, mass shootings continued in the USA. This can be explained by three primary factors: 1) the rate of firearm ownership is significantly higher than that in Australia, and that unlike in Australia, the US did not enact significant buyback programs at the national level, 2) the US AWB was more narrowly focused than that enacted in Australia, and 3) most critically, the legal perspective on firearm ownership differs between the two countries.

    *It is important to note that after that study's publication, there were of course the two recent mass shooting events in Darwin and Osmington. Only time and more research can tell what effect these shootings and the subsequent further regulations enacted by the Australian government will have.

    The second published a couple of months ago found that assault weapons accounted for 86% of a total of 501 mass shooting fatalities in the United States between 1981 and 2017. They add further that "...the federal ban period was associated with statistically significant 9 fewer mass shooting related deaths per 10,000 firearm homicides. Mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the federal ban period," later concluding that "mass shooting related homicides in the United States were reduced during the years of the federal assault weapons ban of 1994 to 2004" (DiMaggio et al., 2019).

    I should also point out that conducting research on this subject, especially in the United States, is extraordinarily difficult compared to research on other public health concerns. Courtesy of lobbying by the NRA, the CDC and university faculty are extremely limited in the funding allocated to research on gun violence prevention and gun policy. Additionally, again thanks to the NRA, we are significantly limited in with whom we can corroborate with to obtain data, and what data we can receive can only be received after a long, arduous application process. So there is not nearly as much existing research as, I would say, there should be. So yes, conclusions are far from definitive at the present time given the state of the literature, but the evidence does suggest an effectiveness of the US AWB (and others in other countries) in reducing both mass shooting events and mass shooting casualties.

    Even if they had been permitted to carry weapons in these areas, it is unlikely these reasonable people would have done anything. Again, empirical evidence shows this has demonstrated to be very rare across time. Recent evidence suggests the rate of victims of all types of gun crime (let alone mass shootings) using a gun in self-defense is less than 1%. Other data indicate that strategies such as calling for help is about as effective in preventing injury as is using a firearm.

    As far as these "good guys with a gun" in mass shooting situations, I'm not aware of any evidence that would speak to its effectiveness or ineffectiveness. I do know, however, that many in law enforcement say the idea of being a "good guy with a gun" is bad for a couple of reasons, not the least of which being the good guy making himself an easily identifiable target to the mass shooter. If the good guy engages, a crossfire is introduced to the situation which will increase the chances of noncombatants being injured or killed. And when law enforcement does arrive, in the short time they have to take action they are probably not going to be able to identify who the "good guy" is, as they will appear as ostensibly another malicious gunman. So it is likely the probability of the "good guy" being shot by law enforcement is elevated as well.

    I'm aware. Firearm noises are caused by the muzzle flash, the supersonic crack of the round ejected, and the mechanical action of the weapon firing. Suppressors mitigate the muzzle flash. Nothing can be done about the supersonic crack unless you use subsonic ammunition, which is substantially heavier than supersonic (i.e. normal) ammunition and is ineffective at longer ranges. The combination of those two is where movies/video games get their idea of what a suppressor sounds like (whilst mostly negating the effect of the increased weight of subsonic ammunition). Yes that is annoying that myth is perpetuated.

    In full disclosure, I am not as completely informed about the suppressor issue as I could be, so I'll keep my spiel on this brief and would indeed appreciate more information. Double hearing protection is far more effective in preventing ear damage than is a suppressor. For potential victims of a mass shooting, the noise of a firearm is a safety feature for those who might be potential targets, giving warning to location of the shooter. I would think allowing devices that are used to dampen that sound, however minutely as suppressors do, could engender negative ramifications for would-be victims.

    Well, from the 2018 meta-analysis I mentioned earlier, the authors state as follows:

    "...the obtained results not only provide additional evidence that the mere presence (italics added) of weapons can potentially increase aggressive behavior, but more importantly, provide insights into why such an increase might occur." And later, "[o]ur findings also show that the mere presence (italics added) of weapons can also increase hostile appraisals. That is, the mere presence of weapons can cause people to believe other people are aggressive and will respond in an aggressive manner in ambiguous situations. This hostile perception of others should increase the likelihood of aggression." (Benjamin Jr., Kepes, & Bushman, 2018).

    What I can do is take a look back at some of the studies they analyzed and see what exactly "mere presence" means. Their language is vague because of course it is; When you analyze 78 someodd studies, people do different things in their methodologies, so authors of meta-analyses such as this have to be careful to be all-inclusive in their language choice as to what the studies they looked at actually did. In other words, more often than not, they have to be more vague.

    Concealed carry laws are another area in which I am not terrifically informed of the evidence that speak to their effectiveness or ineffectiveness. However, I will say in the studies I have come across, the evidence suggests that concealed carry either has no effect as a crime deterrent or in fact increases crime rates. Whether that is because of the weapons effect, I cannot say.

    Haha, this is honestly giving me some ideas of a new research project I could start...
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2019
    nascarfan9, hiarcracing and mtblillie like this.
  20. Paulcurtis

    Paulcurtis Active Member

    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    22
    As has been once said, your standard colt AR style Rifle, being chambered in .223, is actually far less powerful than most all "hunting" rifles.
    Secondly, that sounds good, until you consider the massive feral hog, and aggressive feral hogs at that, problem here and in other places in the Southern US. Its nothing for a drove of Hogs to have upwards of 15-30 hogs grouped together. So your out on your way to your ground blind, or heck you dont like hunting? your taking a leasurly stroll through the woods enjoying nature one morning, and you stumble across a group of 20 Hogs, that AR style rifle with a 30 round clip suddenly goes from unreasonable to a life saving tool on .5 seconds.
    if you think Im exaggerating about the hog problem here in the south, Im not, its been an ecological disaster to the point where you dont even have to have a hunting license to kill them, AND it was made legal to hunt them from Helicopters......
    Just an FYI, I carry a MAK90 (which is a semiauto rifle on an AK47 frame) with a 30 rnd magazine, plus another mag loaded, when I go just hog hunting, and when I go deer hunting, along with my bolt action 25-06, I carry a .45 cal Colt Lightning style pump rifle as well because it holds 10 rounds, it shoots fairly fast, and it is reasonably small. If I could afford an AR right now, I would use one of those instead, but alas...... po-folk.

    So, short story turned long, what you call unreasonable, I wouldnt even consider going into these woods around here without.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-wild-pigs-ravaging-the-u-s-be-stopped/
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2019
    BAMA92 likes this.

Share This Page