Mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio

[McLaren]

I mean...guns, especially the high-capacity semi automatic rifle variety are the best way to kill a crowd of people effectively. Do you disagree?

I think the contrasting amount of suicide bombers over seas is a decent contest to that.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I think the contrasting amount of suicide bombers over seas is a decent contest to that.

1: I don't see 20-something year old 8channers blowing themselves up. It's clearly not their MO. This option is available to them now, and they never do it. This partially goes back to the fantasy of killing people with guns.

2: ATF & FBI exist and bomb making materials, in quantities necessary for bomb making are more difficult to acquire than firearms are now.

3: The most successful terrorist bombing in the US was the work of months of preparation with multiple skilled/knowledgeable ideologues. This is so far removed from the spate of opportunistic mass shootings in the US in the last few years. Even with a 5,000lb bomb that destroyed an entire mid-rise building, the casualty count was not considerably higher than a guy shooting out of a hotel room window in Las Vegas with almost no paper trail.

Guns > All other methods

edit: Just to clarify my point, there is an entire wikipedia disambiguity page devoted to Failed Times Square Bombing Attacks. As far as I can tell, nobody has actually succeeded in bombing times square, in the modern era, despite many attempts.

 

[Wolfe]

This is what I was originally asking, because these protests are generally not broadcast. The last mass shooting that really seemed to spark any debate was when Obama was President. It seemed like some sort of gun ban might be coming in but nothing really seemed to happen and the mass shootings carried on.

There have been vocal minorities of people out on the streets protesting on a regular basis for years. Not to demand mental healthcare reform, per se -- and not exclusively in response to mass shootings, either -- but in relevance to various things contributing to tensions and violence, including mass shootings. Too many to remember or list them all (or catch wind of every one), as multi-faceted as the problem is, but for an example of what you probably have in mind, March for Our Lives was much more recent.

If little or none of that stuff has made its way over to you, I don't blame you for being under the impression that no one cares. Our media don't do a great job of covering protests either.

 

[Famine]

I think the contrasting amount of suicide bombers over seas is a decent contest to that.

Cars, vans and lorries too.

And I'm not going to go into huge detail on this for patently obvious reasons*, but filling up a van with diesel once every couple of days at your local filling station won't raise any red flags at all. That puts you a couple of steps (one would probably be a rural burglary that you could commit with your van) away from an 8,000lb bomb that you could drive freely to the car park of your local large train station, or airport drop-off, or under a large hotel, or an out of town shopping mall (for fun, most of these have a way to drive into the mall - that's how they get display cars in; get your van tooled up with riot control gear and you could drive it straight in, killing more with the van before you detonate it and deal significant structural damage for more casualties). Don't forget to fill the space between the barrels with nails by the way.

Or put it on Le Shuttle - that'd be a nice little nightmare.

Anyway.

*Not that this is particularly specialist knowledge, mind.

 

[McLaren]

1: I don't see 20-something year old 8channers blowing themselves up. It's clearly not their MO. This option is available to them now, and they never do it. This partially goes back to the fantasy of killing people with guns.

2: ATF & FBI exist and bomb making materials, in quantities necessary for bomb making are more difficult to acquire than firearms are now.

3: The most successful terrorist bombing in the US was the work of months of preparation with multiple skilled/knowledgeable ideologues. This is so far removed from the spate of opportunistic mass shootings in the US in the last few years. Even with a 5,000lb bomb that destroyed an entire mid-rise building, the casualty count was not considerably higher than a guy shooting out of a hotel room window in Las Vegas with almost no paper trail.

Guns > All other methods

You asked the question with the statement. Judging by the rest of the world however since we regularly compare our mass shootings with the world, bombings remain the best way to kill a crowd effectively in contrast.

The ATF & FBI's existence hasn't deterred attempts though. There have been 3 this year alone that planned bombings thankfully caught.

I think you need to look up the actual casualty count. 422 were injured by gunfire, and 58 deaths. McVeigh killed 168 with 680+ injured as a result of the bombing.

 

[baldgye]

There have been vocal minorities of people out on the streets protesting on a regular basis for years. Not to demand mental healthcare reform, per se -- and not exclusively in response to mass shootings, either -- but in relevance to various things contributing to tensions and violence, including mass shootings. Too many to remember or list them all (or catch wind of every one), as multi-faceted as the problem is, but for an example of what you probably have in mind, March for Our Lives was much more recent.

If little or none of that stuff has made its way over to you, I don't blame you for being under the impression that no one cares. Our media don't do a great job of covering protests either.

I mean, if it's only vocal minorites, dosn't that kinda suggest that the wider public isn't that bothered?

That protest you linked to is great, but isn't the problem (just like this thread), that the debate becomes about guns vs no guns and so there is no movement?

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

You asked the question with the statement. Judging by the rest of the world however since we regularly compare our mass shootings with the world, bombings remain the best way to kill a crowd effectively in contrast.

The ATF & FBI's existence hasn't deterred attempts though. There have been 3 this year alone that planned bombings thankfully caught.

I think you need to look up the actual casualty count. 422 were injured by gunfire, and 58 deaths. McVeigh killed 168 with 680+ injured as a result of the bombing.

I remembered McVeigh has 68, not 168. My mistake. But even still, placed in context with the amount of mass casualty (even disregarding the lesser home-invasion types) shootings, 168 people every 30 years seems relatively lower.

I think it's difficult to directly compare a Taliban (for instance) bombing attack to a Psychopath 8channer gun rampage. I don't want to say they are completely distinct, but I do think gun culture is tied up pretty tightly with the kind of mass casualty shooting events we have in the USA in a way that doesn't exist in Afghanistan, where the attacks are either Politically or Ideologically or Religiously motivated, or some combination of all three.

The military hardware is part of the fantasy with these kinds of attacks.

My theory, in summary:

Removing firearms from the equation of attempted mass-casualty attacks would reduce deaths and potentially injuries because alternative methods with reasonable degrees of feasibility are more difficult to carry out and more prone to failure, even if the rate of attempts is not reduced.

So I'm not even getting to the point of how you would even remove firearms, just trying to articulate what would happen if they were according to what is reasonable to me.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Cars, vans and lorries too.

And I'm not going to go into huge detail on this for patently obvious reasons*, but filling up a van with diesel once every couple of days at your local filling station won't raise any red flags at all. That puts you a couple of steps (one would probably be a rural burglary that you could commit with your van) away from an 8,000lb bomb that you could drive freely to the car park of your local large train station, or airport drop-off, or under a large hotel, or an out of town shopping mall (for fun, most of these have a way to drive into the mall - that's how they get display cars in; get your van tooled up with riot control gear and you could drive it straight in, killing more with the van before you detonate it and deal significant structural damage for more casualties). Don't forget to fill the space between the barrels with nails by the way.

Or put it on Le Shuttle - that'd be a nice little nightmare.

Anyway.

*Not that this is particularly specialist knowledge, mind.

You might get a big fire, but you wont get an explosion. Certainly not one with enough concussive effect to do structural damage to a concrete building.

You know what would be easier? Showing up to the airport security line (probably on a Monday when the queues are hundreds deep) with the same van full of guys with AR15s with 100 round magazines and body armor.

 

[McLaren]

You might get a big fire, but you wont get an explosion. Certainly not one with enough concussive effect to do structural damage to a concrete building.

You know what would be easier? Showing up to the airport security line (probably on a Monday when the queues are hundreds deep) with the same van full of guys with AR15s with 100 round magazines and body armor.

Which is what has happened in the rest of the world. You were just talking about how suicide bombings aren't the MO of these recent mass shooters. When's the last attack on US soil of that magnitude?

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Which is what has happened in the rest of the world. You were just talking about how suicide bombings aren't the MO of these recent mass shooters. Neither is organizing an attack of that magnitude.

Yeah. That's true. Well, I still think one guy with a 100rd mag in an AR would be more effective than a slowly burning plume of diesel. Airport would definitely be a difficult target for a lone gunman though, too much security. It's not inconceivable that 2 8channers could do something like that.

edit: Talking about this stuff is really bumming me out. I might not respond for a while...

 

[McLaren]

Yeah. That's true. Well, I still think one guy with a 100rd mag in an AR would be more effective than a slowly burning plume of diesel. Airport would definitely be a difficult target for a lone gunman though, too much security. It's not inconceivable that 2 8channers could do something like that.

edit: Talking about this stuff is really bumming me out. I might not respond for a while...

To the 100rd mag., I would prefer something like that be classified alongside Class III weapons and require a special permit to obtain then, imo. Much like say, the difficulty & time to obtain a silencer.

 

[Famine]

You might get a big fire, but you wont get an explosion. Certainly not one with enough concussive effect to do structural damage to a concrete building.

Since you're creating an explosive - one of the most common explosives in use, as it happens - yes you will get an explosion. As the explosive is used to bring down buildings and blow apart rocks in the mining industry, it will do significant structural damage - more so if detonated in a confined space.

You know what would be easier? Showing up to the airport security line (probably on a Monday when the queues are hundreds deep) with the same van full of guys with AR15s with 100 round magazines and body armor.

Can't do that in the UK. That aside, no-one with any sense gets involved in a group project.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Since you're creating an explosive - one of the most common explosives in use, as it happens - yes you will get an explosion.

Can't do that in the UK. That aside, no-one with any sense gets involved in a group project.

Outside of it boiling to extremely high pressure inside a sealed vessel before igniting, I don't see how it would be an effective bomb. Edit: This is veering to a not great place.

 

[Famine]

Outside of it boiling to extremely high pressure inside a sealed vessel before igniting, I don't see how it would be an effective bomb.

It's an ingredient...

And I'm not going to go into huge detail on this for patently obvious reasons*, but filling up a van with diesel once every couple of days at your local filling station won't raise any red flags at all. That puts you a couple of steps (one would probably be a rural burglary that you could commit with your van) away from an 8,000lb bomb that...

 

[Michael88]

I mean...guns, especially the high-capacity semi automatic rifle variety are the best way to kill a crowd of people effectively. Do you disagree?

No, not really, in fact a gun is quite far down the list.

Running a 20 ton semi truck at 75 mp/h into a dense crowd would probably kill WAY more people in MUCH less time than any gun ever could. Not to mention a large explosive, or several small explosives spread out could kill way more people in the blink of an eye. Also chemical weapons. Chemical weapons are even worse, often they do not kill outright and the deaths are very horrifying and graphic, especially with mustard gas which is quite easy to manufacture and nearly invisible.

And I just remembered that here in Austria there was a terror attack involving a guy with a self-built flamethrower attacking a kindergarten burning several dozen kids in minutes.

Heck, dozens of people died in crowds WITHOUT any weapon simply due to mass panic and badly managed locations, as it happened in Germany at the love parade.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I should have said easily, rather than best. And again - reduce effectiveness, not eliminate attempts. Firearms are pretty much fool proof and ready to go. They are designed to do the job in a way a semi-truck is not.

No, not really, in fact a gun is quite far down the list.

Running a 20 ton semi truck at 75 mp/h into a dense crowd would probably kill WAY more people in MUCH less time than any gun ever could.

Sure, but the opportunity for this is quite limited. For instance, you are automatically limited to unprotected outdoor gatherings either on a road or immediately adjacent to one. You have to balance the ability to have enough space to gather the speed necessary vs being visible on the run-up which would alert people to the attack beforehand. I don't think it's as much of a slam dunk as you are claiming. Not saying it's impossible, the circumstances have to be just right. Most cities now have steel bollards protecting public areas for just this eventuality.

Not to mention a large explosive, or several small explosives spread out could kill way more people in the blink of an eye.

For a Timothy McVeigh type, yes. However, most mass shooters are probably not this capable. They are opportunists who look for easy soft targets to shoot. Planning on this scale is a big effort.

Also chemical weapons. Chemical weapons are even worse, often they do not kill outright and the deaths are very horrifying and graphic, especially with mustard gas which is quite easy to manufacture and nearly invisible.

And I just remembered that here in Austria there was a terror attack involving a guy with a self-built flamethrower attacking a kindergarten burning several dozen kids in minutes.

Heck, dozens of people died in crowds WITHOUT any weapon simply due to mass panic and badly managed locations, as it happened in Germany at the love parade.

These all seem less likely to me. But who knows with our our civilizations penchant for depravity.

The fact is this: The above types of attacks could happen now in the US. If they were, in fact, superior and easier to carry out than using firearms, than they would be used quite frequently. The fact that these perpetrators choose to use military-esque weapons over and over again should be proof enough of their effectiveness and their role as being instrumental to the pathos of the attack.

We need to face that we have a gun problem. We certainly have other problems as well.

 

[Wolfe]

I mean, if it's only vocal minorites, dosn't that kinda suggest that the wider public isn't that bothered?

Maybe "vocal minority" isn't the right choice of words if you aren't familiar enough with the sense of scale here. A vocal minority could be up to millions of people. March for Our Lives was estimated as 1.2 to 2 million, according to Wikipedia there.

It is quite unrealistic to expect millions upon millions to get out and protest (isolated) mass shootings when a lot of people have bills to pay, children to raise, or their own struggles to deal with. That is not the same as not being bothered. Not to be stern, but you simply have it wrong.

While working today, I spoke with an elderly couple who live on a small house on a quiet road in the middle of nowhere, miles from a Walmart and over an hour from any city the size of Dayton, who are spooked by the news. From the bottom of my heart, I wish they weren't scared. With careless hyper-sensationalized coverage, the media are damaging people's emotional well-being across the country, and that makes me sick. I cannot overstate how disgusted I am with what passes for covering the news today.

It's all out of proportion. That doesn't mean nothing should be done, but it means we have the opposite of a shortage of people who are bothered.

That protest you linked to is great, but isn't the problem (just like this thread), that the debate becomes about guns vs no guns and so there is no movement?

I only picked it because you said you expected people to respond to mass shootings with action. They have. The debate was nevertheless about guns vs no guns because that's how the debate is framed. But that doesn't discount the fact that people have taken action, even if it didn't create the result you were hoping for.

 

[Danoff]

But even still, placed in context with the amount of mass casualty (even disregarding the lesser home-invasion types) shootings, 168 people every 30 years seems relatively lower.

It's all one big happy mass-murdering category. Bombs, knives, automatic weapons, semi-automatic rifles, handguns, trucks, airplanes, and arson. These are all the tools of the same trade. It's not "every 30 years" for one of these types vs. the other. It's just a non-stop smorgasbord of crazy people and their crazy plans. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't make it harder for them to get guns (or bombs, or take over planes), but let's not pretend that McVeigh would have called it off if he hadn't known how to build a bomb. Or that Vegas would have called it off if he hadn't had a bump stock.

Sometimes I don't have the perfect tool for working on my car, but I can often find other tools for the job, tools that are cheaper than buying the perfect one, and which will do quite nicely. The point is, I wanted to work on my car... not work with a specific tool.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

It's all one big happy mass-murdering category. Bombs, knives, automatic weapons, semi-automatic rifles, handguns, trucks, airplanes, and arson. These are all the tools of the same trade. It's not "every 30 years" for one of these types vs. the other. It's just a non-stop smorgasbord of crazy people and their crazy plans. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't make it harder for them to get guns (or bombs, or take over planes), but let's not pretend that McVeigh would have called it off if he hadn't known how to build a bomb. Or that Vegas would have called it off if he hadn't had a bump stock.

Sometimes I don't have the perfect tool for working on my car, but I can often find other tools for the job, tools that are cheaper than buying the perfect one, and which will do quite nicely. The point is, I wanted to work on my car... not work with a specific tool.

I don't think I really disagree with you specifically. What I'm trying to get at is two things:

-I think obsession with "tacticool" firearms is intrinsic to the mass shooting fantasy.
-The 'ease to deadliness' ratio of firearms (specifically semi auto rifles with large capacity magazines) is higher than other potential methods, meaning that firearms attacks are easy and fast to plan and carry out with little to no exposure to law enforcement. Imagine how less effective the Vegas gunman might have been if he was forced to use a lesser tool, like a handgun or even a CA-legal AR15. Maybe it was 10 people instead of 50+.

And by McVeigh being a 50 year event, I mean...hmm. He was an idealogue with a deep and long simmering feud with the institution of the US government. This gets tricky. I don't see him being on the same plane of existence as a twenty-something disaffected troll attacking people as fantasy. We may never be able to stop somebody like McVeigh. I hope we can either stop (mental health) or reduce the effectiveness (weapons control) of the counterstrike re-enactments.

 

[Michael88]

The fact is this: The above types of attacks could happen now in the US. If they were, in fact, superior and easier to carry out than using firearms, than they would be used quite frequently. The fact that these perpetrators choose to use military-esque weapons over and over again should be proof enough of their effectiveness and their role as being instrumental to the pathos of the attack.

I rather think its the strict thinking of the attackers, if you want to hurt people you use a weapon. Don't need to use creative thinking.-
Now if an explosive or a vehicle would be even more effective does not seem to cross their minds. It sure has crossed the mind of terrorists here in Europe though where vehicular assaults are not uncommon at all. I'm pretty sure if they didn't have access to guns they'd simply explore other ways to do harm, and by no means less effective ways.

Also please don't use terms like military-esque since that is a very incorrect and vague term. The military uses fully automatic weapons, these are not available to the puplic.

We need to face that we have a gun problem.

I disagree, you have a people problem. You have people going nuts wanting to hurt other people, the crime statistics in general are bad in the US. The presence of guns don't make people turn into monsters, its environmental factors that forge them into what they are. You have people wandering about who snap so hard they kill dozens of people, don't you think that those people are immensely dangerous and the danger does not disappear if they don't have access to guns (and you cant even do that because of illegal channels)? The problem is crazy people doing crazy things. Nobody blames road rage and speeding on cars either, and demands a car ban.

And all those things said, shootings is stills total fringe problem all things considered, especially in such a big country like the US. As tragic as those shootings are, statistically they are an extremely uncommon occurrence that just seem WAY bigger and more common than they are due to extreme media coverage.

The amount of people killed in such shootings is matched in one day in gang shootings and robberies, but people don't really care about that and for some reason that's not really a tragedy.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I rather think its the strict thinking of the attackers, if you want to hurt people you use a weapon. Don't need to use creative thinking.-
Now if an explosive or a vehicle would be even more effective does not seem to cross their minds. It sure has crossed the mind of terrorists here in Europe though where vehicular assaults are not uncommon at all. I'm pretty sure if they didn't have access to guns they'd simply explore other ways to do harm, and by no means less effective ways.

Also please don't use terms like military-esque since that is a very incorrect and vague term. The military uses fully automatic weapons, these are not available to the puplic.


I disagree, you have a people problem. You have people going nuts wanting to hurt other people, the crime statistics in general are bad in the US. The presence of guns don't make people turn into monsters, its environmental factors that forge them into what they are. You have people wandering about who snap so hard they kill dozens of people, don't you think that those people are immensely dangerous and the danger does not disappear if they don't have access to guns (and you cant even do that because of illegal channels)? The problem is crazy people doing crazy things. Nobody blames road rage and speeding on cars either, and demands a car ban.

And all those things said, shootings is stills total fringe problem all things considered, especially in such a big country like the US. As tragic as those shootings are, statistically they are an extremely uncommon occurrence that just seem WAY bigger and more common than they are due to extreme media coverage.

The amount of people killed in such shootings is matched in one day in gang shootings and robberies, but people don't really care about that and for some reason that's not really a tragedy.

An AR15 is military esque in that it's built to nearly the same design (and in many cases of higher quality!) as its military equivalent, the M16. It uses largely the same ammunition (though with greater variation than military versions), has largely the same performance attributes (other than the ability to fire fully automatic) and is nearly the same thing. Civilian versions of AK pattern rifles are the same story. Same ammunition, same gas-piston cycling, same magazines. Largely the same ability to fit various accessories. Put another way, an AR15 is 90% an M16. With a Bump stock, that's more like 98%. If that's not military-esque, than I don't know what is? Plus, if you understand their popularity you know that they are purchased explicitly because they are military-esque. It's the whole point. I know weapons, I lived in Texas most of my life. One of the AKs I owned was a paratrooper model with a folding metal stock. I don't think that qualifies as a hunting rifle.

I don't think you really understand the feedback loop of mass shootings, certain internet circles and gun obsession. But it's a problem. The guns are intrinsic to it....they are not merely the means of perpetrating the attack, they are part of the motivation. This might not have been the case 10 years ago, but I absolutely think it is now. Maybe it's gun addiction fueled by and fueling isolation? I know people that are absolutely addicted to guns to the point where it impacts their social life and even their career. Again, was this a thing 10 years ago? I don't know. I agree that guns, as objects, cannot be the problem. But a certain segment of the population's attachment to them is troubling.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It sure has crossed the mind of terrorists here in Europe though where vehicular assaults are not uncommon at all.

10 in five years across a population area of around 750 million? They are uncommon. Don't let the press get you too excited. The USA has had four in the same period with a population that's less than half that of Europe, they're almost equally uncommon there.

 

[Groundfish]

Well, I think there are a lot of mentally ill people out there.
I will relate it to the daily commute. People drive extremely aggressively in my area during commute hours. It’s like a daily contest of who can get a lane position that nets one car length.
I just think that around me kindness rates have dropped over the last twenty years in general.
I am a believer in the butterfly effect.
How is it possible to predict the actions of the insane?
I’ve given this some thought over the last while here.
To me, this brings to light an important concept. The concept that a random act of kindness to a stranger and the effect of that action vs a me vs them mentality (as seems present in many drivers during commute hours)
If you think about it being kind and considerate to others even when you won’t get credit....
It potentially could help prevent triggering criminally insane people.
People have made fun of me at times for me driving in real life like hey you drive like an old man you always leave space, people are getting there faster...I don’t care. And in my trying to be safe daily driving mode I see all manner of aggressive driving.
I just think that the smallest act of consideration or kindness that people can do is always a good move, because the positive benefits that could come from that are potentially quite impactful.
Maybe when you do something as simple as cutting someone off to get ahead you set in motion a negative chain of events that ends up triggering an insane person to harm themselves or even worst case others...
Maybe when you are considerate that effect that butterfly effect sweeps out and helps someone who is mentally ill get help.
Far fetched yes, but hey you never know. That one little kind act like letting someone go ahead in line getting groceries could prevent a tragedy.
You never know....

Edit removed redundancy

 

[baldgye]

@Wolfe i can see your point, that said the Brexit protest saw a million people marching on London. That’s a much higher % of the population... yet I still don’t think the vast majority care.

But that doesn't discount the fact that people have taken action, even if it didn't create the result you were hoping for.

I guess, though really the result should be something American’s want... not me


Edit: Seems things are happening... yay?

 

[Dotini]

10 in five years across a population area of around 750 million? They are uncommon. Don't let the press get you too excited. The USA has had four in the same period with a population that's less than half that of Europe, they're almost equally uncommon there.

Yes. When we can dismiss mass acts of violence and death as statistically trivial, as I presume we should, then it makes a lot of sense to simply mitigate the harmful effects instead of attempting to understand and deal with complex and possibly troublesome root causes. This is the #1 plan.

 

[Whitestar]

Where are all those norwegian mass shooters?

He's in jail.

The Norway number seems admittedly off key as the only attack I see being factored is the one where 69 or so people were killed and another 60 injured in 2011 which could attribute to large amount of death rate per. But I'm not sure where they're pulling the frequency from.

77 were killed.

The frequency is derived by introducing per capita into the data set, as shown in the video which that article links to.

Of course by doing it that way countries with low population (f.ex. Norway, Finland) are going to look particularly bad even if there are few incidents but many people are killed in those few incidents.
Take Norway as an example, we had 1 mass shooting from 2009 to 2015. But because so many people were killed and our population is so low/small it will look very bad when used like this in statistics.

But put a different way (using wikipedia):
From 2009-2015 Norway had 1 mass shooting. In total 77 people were killed.
From 2009-2015 USA had 53 mass shootings. In total 320 people were killed (not including perpetrator). (33 and 274 if we remove those incidents where less than 4 people were killed).

Suddenly Norway doesn't look so bad after all. The United States on the other hand...

 

[Michael88]

An AR15 is military esque in that it's built to nearly the same design (and in many cases of higher quality!) as its military equivalent, the M16. It uses largely the same ammunition (though with greater variation than military versions), has largely the same performance attributes (other than the ability to fire fully automatic) and is nearly the same thing. Civilian versions of AK pattern rifles are the same story. Same ammunition, same gas-piston cycling, same magazines. Largely the same ability to fit various accessories. Put another way, an AR15 is 90% an M16. With a Bump stock, that's more like 98%. If that's not military-esque, than I don't know what is? .

You definitely are getting your information from the big media outlets, if you had hands on experience you would know this is not the case. A bump stock allows you to shoot very fast, yes, but the construction makes the gun so inaccurate it basically makes it useless, it is nothing like a fully automatic rifle at all. That's why I laughed when they banned it because it was just a nonsensical fun addition to a gun that was not even remotely practical, and was not meant to be. But whatever makes the citizen sleep better at night and more importantly, makes you win voters with the flick of a pen.

Also calling a gun that is not capable of fully automatic fire nearly the same as a gun capable of fully automatic fire can only come from somebody who has never shot a fully automatic rifle. They are not nearly the same. At all. Fully automatic fire mode makes it an entirely different beast. So different in fact that citizen are not allowed to own fully automatic firearms in nearly all countries that allow gun ownership.

And before anybody accuses me of talking about something I have no idea about, the record, I served in the military (NBC unit) and shot fully automatic rifles, I also do own semi automatic firearms myself. I do have hands on experience with these appliances you speak of, I've been spending 6 hours at the shooting range every week, for 12 years now. (I've never wanted to make love to my guns though, so maybe there is something wrong with me. )

Also about the term military-esque, look at this hunting gun. Definitely no military-esque, right? Looks nothing like anything any military fields nowadays right? Would you believe if I said this gun can exactly do what the AR15 (AR15 = civilan M16 version) can do? Because it can. It can accept 30 round magazines, it is semi automatic and shoots .223.

In fact, semi automatic guns have existed for about a 100 years now, its a design that predates World War 1, so there is nothing military-esque about that feature either.

So, what gives? Is it just that evil look of the AR15 and the AK?

It never ceases to amaze me with how little information people judge things and other people and condemn them. Its frightening, but something very popular nowadays. Guess its the current Zeitgeist.

 

[McLaren]

He's in jail.

77 were killed.

The frequency is derived by introducing per capita into the data set, as shown in the video which that article links to.

Of course by doing it that way countries with low population (f.ex. Norway, Finland) are going to look particularly bad even if there are few incidents but many people are killed in those few incidents.
Take Norway as an example, we had 1 mass shooting from 2009 to 2015. But because so many people were killed and our population is so low/small it will look very bad when used like this in statistics.

But put a different way (using wikipedia):
From 2009-2015 Norway had 1 mass shooting. In total 77 people were killed.
From 2009-2015 USA had 53 mass shootings. In total 320 people were killed (not including perpetrator). (33 and 274 if we remove those incidents where less than 4 people were killed).

Suddenly Norway doesn't look so bad after all. The United States on the other hand...

Fair enough. 👍

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

You definitely are getting your information from the big media outlets, if you had hands on experience you would know this is not the case. A bump stock allows you to shoot very fast, yes, but the construction makes the gun so inaccurate it basically makes it useless, it is nothing like a fully automatic rifle at all. That's why I laughed when they banned it because it was just a nonsensical fun addition to a gun that was not even remotely practical, and was not meant to be. But whatever makes the citizen sleep better at night and more importantly, makes you win voters with the flick of a pen.

Also calling a gun that is not capable of fully automatic fire nearly the same as a gun capable of fully automatic fire can only come from somebody who has never shot a fully automatic rifle. They are not nearly the same. At all. Fully automatic fire mode makes it an entirely different beast. So different in fact that citizen are not allowed to own fully automatic firearms in nearly all countries that allow gun ownership.

And before anybody accuses me of talking about something I have no idea about, the record, I served in the military (NBC unit) and shot fully automatic rifles, I also do own semi automatic firearms myself. I do have hands on experience with these appliances you speak of, I've been spending 6 hours at the shooting range every week, for 12 years now. (I've never wanted to make love to my guns though, so maybe there is something wrong with me. )

Also about the term military-esque, look at this hunting gun. Definitely no military-esque, right? Looks nothing like anything any military fields nowadays right? Would you believe if I said this gun can exactly do what the AR15 (AR15 = civilan M16 version) can do? Because it can. It can accept 30 round magazines, it is semi automatic and shoots .223.


In fact, semi automatic guns have existed for about a 100 years now, its a design that predates World War 1, so there is nothing military-esque about that feature either.

So, what gives? Is it just that evil look of the AR15 and the AK?

It never ceases to amaze me with how little information people judge things and other people and condemn them. Its frightening, but something very popular nowadays. Guess its the current Zeitgeist.

Ah, the lets do the whole 'post a mini-14 with wooden furniture and say LOOK THIS ONE ISN'T SCARY LOOKING".

How about you post one with one of those 30 round magazines attached or mention that it is mechanically similar to the M1 battle rifle so you don't come off as disingenuous? I don't give two shell casings what the gun looks like, its a stupid aesthetic argument. I care what it can do. If it's a rifle-caliber gun that takes detachable box magazines with more than 30 rounds in them, they are prime crowd killers, semi-auto or not. These types of guns should not be freely available to nearly anyone off the street. Or at LEAST not the larger capacity magazines, as @McLaren mentioned.

Again, I'm not some "liberal snowflake" that knows nothing about guns. I used to go to the range at least once a week. I owned a Polish AK74, an FN FAL, a PS90, a Bulgarian AK74 (badass plum furniture) a Swiss K31, 2x Makarov PMs, 2x CZ52s. The pattern of all those weapons was military. They were designed originally as military weapons. To say they are not military-esque is wrong and willfully disingenuous, you reduce yourself to a talking point.

Regardless, times are mercifully changing, and I do see the momentum behind some kind of tightened restrictions, so your point is moot and your mentality will be overriden eventually.

 

[Tornado]

A bump stock allows you to shoot very fast, yes, but the construction makes the gun so inaccurate it basically makes it useless, it is nothing like a fully automatic rifle at all. That's why I laughed when they banned it because it was just a nonsensical fun addition to a gun that was not even remotely practical, and was not meant to be

So is that how that Las Vegas shooting turned into a joyous episode of the A-Team with their completely harmless Rugers instead of 58 people being killed by a guy with an AR-15 with a bump stock?