Can we please talk about some ideas that might actually work?

[MegaPoke]

Rather than being funneled into the predictable gun control corners?

Whether you like guns or not, mass shootings aren't tied to anything new regarding gun lethality or availability. So, let's try for the sake of this thread - setting aside guns and talk about other solutions.

@Been Jammin had an interesting suggestion regarding additional hoops for young men in the age demographic of mass shooters to go through when purchasing guns or types of guns.

Is this something that is workable without violating Constitutional rights?

Is there any kind of median profile of a mass shooter that we should be looking at? We know they tend to be 18-25 year old men, but specifically they are disaffected, lonely young men who are more often than not, overmedicated and lack father figures. What else? What is a realistic way to screen these people and identify sociopathic tendencies they all seem to have before it gets to this point?

Virtually all of these guys wind up having left behind a trail of clear signals and weird behavior for years. Many if not most, filter through a variety law enforcement and school administration failures before they act. It's pretty clear there are usually multiple levels of opportunities to try to get these people identified and under some kind of closer observation.

Red flag proposals seem to be an effort to address this, but they seem ripe for abuse too. Surely there is some way to filter these people out of society without sweeping abuses of civil liberties.

 

[CBradSmith]

In for the thoughtful discussion.

 

[Been Jammin]

The problem is that for every shooter that left behind a trail of warning signs, there are probably 100s of guys who showed the same warning signs but didn’t act on it. Either they committed suicide or they matured and found a way out of the hole they were in.

I think the easiest way to find the bad actors is to make their weapon of choice tougher to get. That way they are more likely to expose themselves during the process. It also makes it easier to set up sting operations.

 

[MegaPoke]

find the bad actors is to make their weapon of choice tougher to get.

That's the holy grail. Being able to do that without violating anyones due process or other rights is the challenge. It also requires profiling, which makes sense but there's a lot of precedence set for people being against that.

 

[Been Jammin]

That's the holy grail. Being able to do that without violating anyones due process or other rights is the challenge. It also requires profiling, which makes sense but there's a lot of precedence set for people being against that.

Paradigm shifts are always tough. Not impossible though.

 

[Medic007]

Is there any kind of median profile of a mass shooter that we should be looking at?

https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/who-are-mass-shooters-mass-shooter-demographics-part-2/

 

[CBradSmith]

@Syskatine take a breather from being a jackass, and take notes.

 

[Syskatine]

@Syskatine take a breather from being a jackass, and take notes.

Can't talk about increasing mass shootings without addressing this.

 

[CBradSmith]

Can't talk about increasing mass shootings without addressing this.

Read the gawddamn thread. There's a sensible center left guy doing a good job. Try to restrain yourself from flinging shit and projecting your shitty attitude.

 

[Pokeabear]

There should be licenses. You need one to get married or operate a vehicle. The constitution provides for guns to be regulated and “licensed” by the government. During the founding times if you owned a military type rifle it was catalogued and registered with the government.

 

[2012Bearcat]

I can't help but think some of the prescription drugs they have some of these kids on is at the bare minimum something that needs to be look at.

 

[squeak]

There should be licenses. You need one or get married or operate a vehicle. The constitution provides for guns to be regulated and “licensed” by the government. During the founding times if you owned a military type rifle it was catalogued and registered with the government.

If people are too stupid to get one to vote, then how could, say, a brown woman, be expected to obtain a gun legally to protect herself?

 

[2012Bearcat]

There should be licenses. You need one or get married or operate a vehicle. The constitution provides for guns to be regulated and “licensed” by the government. During the founding times if you owned a military type rifle it was catalogued and registered with the government.

I wouldn't have a problem with any of that provided there was an iron clad agreement that any type of gun registration were to be never used for gun confiscation. Of course the government can not be trusted with information like that so no way in hell would I support any type of gun registration.

 

[Syskatine]

Read the gawddamn thread. There's a sensible center left guy doing a good job. Try to restrain yourself from flinging shit and projecting your shitty attitude.

It's fact and quit being so shrill. It's a very compelling graph. Availability is everything and driving up the price is a legitimate option. Someone was talking about how Browning and tommy guns used to be available over the counter. What did they cost? Could the mentally Disturbed kid that can't hold down a job get his hands on one without freaking someone out and blowing his plan in the process?

Here is something else that made me think. Charles Whitman is the only Mass shooter that did it because of a brain tumor (as far as I know) but I cant recall if he had a dad.

Isolating fatherless white kids and figuring out if there is some kind of potential violence should be right down the Fairway of a school counselor. In my very limited experience that just doesn't exist the way it used to when I was a kid. I can remember some kids would go see the school counselor a couple times a week for regular visits.

There should be licenses. You need one or get married or operate a vehicle. The constitution provides for guns to be regulated and “licensed” by the government. During the founding times if you owned a military type rifle it was catalogued and registered with the government.

Amen. This.

 

[OKSTATE1]

Would help if they had the technology thru finger printing, palm print, DNA, something...that the gun can only be activated by a single user? The owner of the gun. If you tie in a licensing procedure or something to make sure you are not insane, If you are going to make a private sell, the person buying the gun would have to take the gun to an approved location, verify who they are and that they are licensed. Only at that time would the sell take place and the gun then programmed to shoot for the new owner.

This would help in safety if in a struggle an assailant grabbed a gun from you, they could not
fire the weapon at you. Certainly this would limit in your home he could fire the gun. But perhaps you should be only shooting a gun you are familiar with and comfortable with? My wife and I have different pistols, her hands are small.

Might make the guns more expensive at first, but technology costs always go down over time.

Personally, no biggie to me if the private selling of weapons was more difficult. It might move the selling of more guns to private and licensed dealers that could assist in these new procedures.

It would also help identify the shooter of the weapon in a murder if the bullet is tied back to a weapon.

Older guns would not fall under the new law, I know that is not ideal for the gun control advocates but this could be a start.

Technology might offer a long term solution, someone might be able to improve this suggestion.

 

[poke2001]

Would help if they had the technology thru finger printing, palm print, DNA, something...that the gun can only be activated by a single user? The owner of the gun. If you tie in a licensing procedure or something to make sure you are not insane, If you are going to make a private sell, the person buying the gun would have to take the gun to an approved location, verify who they are and that they are licensed. Only at that time would the sell take place and the gun then programmed to shoot for the new owner.

This would help in safety if in a struggle an assailant grabbed a gun from you, they could not
fire the weapon at you. Certainly this would limit in your home he could fire the gun. But perhaps you should be only shooting a gun you are familiar with and comfortable with? My wife and I have different pistols, her hands are small.

Might make the guns more expensive at first, but technology costs always go down over time.

Personally, no biggie to me if the private selling of weapons was more difficult. It might move the selling of more guns to private and licensed dealers that could assist in these new procedures.

It would also help identify the shooter of the weapon in a murder if the bullet is tied back to a weapon.

Older guns would not fall under the new law, I know that is not ideal for the gun control advocates but this could be a start.

Technology might offer a long term solution, someone might be able to improve this suggestion.

No thanks...when it’s raining, or I’m sweating from a run, I can’t unlock my iPhone with my thumbprint. I’d hate the gun not “unlock” for a similar reason.

 

[OKSTATE1]

No thanks...when it’s raining, or I’m sweating from a run, I can’t unlock my iPhone with my thumbprint. I’d hate the gun not “unlock” for a similar reason.

Obviously it would need to be instantaneous. Self defense weapons would require that.

 

[Medic007]

Can't talk about increasing mass shootings without addressing this.

Interesting. From the same article your graph comes from...

 

[iasooner1]

Maybe Medic can remind us of any "hippa" loopholes that may be applicable

 

[capanski]

I can't help but think some of the prescription drugs they have some of these kids on is at the bare minimum something that needs to be look at.

THIS^^^

 

[aix_xpert]

The problem is that for every shooter that left behind a trail of warning signs, there are probably 100s of guys who showed the same warning signs but didn’t act on it. Either they committed suicide or they matured and found a way out of the hole they were in.

I think the easiest way to find the bad actors is to make their weapon of choice tougher to get. That way they are more likely to expose themselves during the process. It also makes it easier to set up sting operations.

The problem with this theory is that it assumes the weapon of choice doesn't ever change which isnt realistic. As soon as ARs are hard to get, then suddenly every shooting will be done with a guy and 2 gloks. And we've done nothing but moved the bar while restricting rights of law abiding citizens.

 

[aix_xpert]

I wouldn't have a problem with any of that provided there was an iron clad agreement that any type of gun registration were to be never used for gun confiscation. Of course the government can not be trusted with information like that so no way in hell would I support any type of gun registration.

As soon as this registry is created it would immediately be petitioned under the Open Records act.

 

[Been Jammin]

The problem with this theory is that it assumes the weapon of choice doesn't ever change which isnt realistic. As soon as ARs are hard to get, then suddenly every shooting will be done with a guy and 2 gloks. And we've done nothing but moved the bar while restricting rights of law abiding citizens.

How are we restricting anyone's rights? In Texas, if I want to get my car inspected, I have to provide proof of insurance. That was not the case 10 years ago. I'm not talking about necessarily preventing ownership of anything currently available (legally). I'm just adding some hurdles to the process.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

The problem with this theory is that it assumes the weapon of choice doesn't ever change which isnt realistic. As soon as ARs are hard to get, then suddenly every shooting will be done with a guy and 2 gloks. And we've done nothing but moved the bar while restricting rights of law abiding citizens.

I can get off a lot more shots with two (even one) pistols than I can with an AR-15. That's what makes your point so important.

 

[Been Jammin]

I can get off a lot more shots with two (even one) pistols than I can with an AR-15. That's what makes your point so important.

Honest questions.

Can you do as much damage with each shot?
Are these guys choosing the AR-15 because they expect to eventually be in a shootout with police?
Or because an AR-15 bullet is more likely to pass through a victim and hit another victim behind the first victim?
If the answers to all 3 questions are "no", why do you think a lot of these guys choose the AR-15 over an easier to conceal pistol?
Is it because the magazines hold more bullets and they don't have to stop shooting to reload?

 

[Bitter Creek]

Can't talk about increasing mass shootings without addressing this.

Correlation always equals causation?

What constitutes a mass shootng in the study?

 

[Syskatine]

Correlation always equals causation?

What constitutes a mass shootng in the study?

Of course not.

I don't know that this graphic contemplates any volume of mass shootings. All that it does is rebut the contention that access to semi-auto weapons has been static for 100 years. If "access" means "theoretically available" that's true. If it means "practical availability" that's not true. An semi-auto .223 is more available if there are 25,000,000 in circulation as opposed to 2500 in circulation.

 

[aix_xpert]

Honest questions.

Can you do as much damage with each shot?
Are these guys choosing the AR-15 because they expect to eventually be in a shootout with police?
Or because an AR-15 bullet is more likely to pass through a victim and hit another victim behind the first victim?
If the answers to all 3 questions are "no", why do you think a lot of these guys choose the AR-15 over an easier to conceal pistol?
Is it because the magazines hold more bullets and they don't have to stop shooting to reload?

I think 3 reasons:

1) They look cooler. You feel much more 'soldiery' (think Call of Duty) using an AR vs. a handgun.
2) Better accuracy at range. Doesn't matter much in a school shooting where the targets are 20 feet away, but would in some other mass shooting events like Las Vegas where he's firing from 300-500 feet away from his targets.
3) The added notoriety gained when using an assault rifle.

Also, worth noting they don't all use ARs. I know that's the narrative, but the Santa Fe (TX) school shooting was done with a shotgun and revolver. The Kentucky shooting last year was a Ruger hand-gun.

 

[Syskatine]

Honest questions.

Can you do as much damage with each shot?
Are these guys choosing the AR-15 because they expect to eventually be in a shootout with police?
Or because an AR-15 bullet is more likely to pass through a victim and hit another victim behind the first victim?
If the answers to all 3 questions are "no", why do you think a lot of these guys choose the AR-15 over an easier to conceal pistol?
Is it because the magazines hold more bullets and they don't have to stop shooting to reload?

Yes. Also it's a wicked, cheap round from a wicked, cheap gun. There aren't that many guns chambered for semi-autos, particularly rifles. .308, the russian short round (AK), .223... there are some sporting semi-autos that have bigger rounds but they don't really have magazines or high capacity capability that I know of. I'm not sure lately, but you could get thousands of rounds of surplus military rounds for dirt cheap for a long time. I think the Obama era ended that, but prices for the ammo used to be the cheapest rifle ammo out there.

Something else you don't hear is how the AR prices have plunged. 25 years ago you had to hunt to find one less than $1,000. You can buy good ones for half that price everywhere now.

There are slide and lever action rifles that would be a heluva problem... but they have limited rounds, they don't use detachable clips.

 

[Syskatine]

Honest questions.

Can you do as much damage with each shot?
Are these guys choosing the AR-15 because they expect to eventually be in a shootout with police?
Or because an AR-15 bullet is more likely to pass through a victim and hit another victim behind the first victim?
If the answers to all 3 questions are "no", why do you think a lot of these guys choose the AR-15 over an easier to conceal pistol?
Is it because the magazines hold more bullets and they don't have to stop shooting to reload?

The bullet also travels faster than other rounds - its absurd. And it's a tiny bullet, so it ricochets and splinters easily when it hits flesh. The round is specifically designed to hurt PEOPLE. Shooting it is easy -- it doesn't kick and it's real accurate and travels super fast. Shooting a 30 - 06 will kick the hell out of you over and over.

 

[Medic007]

Yes. Also it's a wicked, cheap round from a wicked, cheap gun. There aren't that many guns chambered for semi-autos, particularly rifles. .308, the russian short round (AK), .223... there are some sporting semi-autos that have bigger rounds but they don't really have magazines or high capacity capability that I know of. I'm not sure lately, but you could get thousands of rounds of surplus military rounds for dirt cheap for a long time. I think the Obama era ended that, but prices for the ammo used to be the cheapest rifle ammo out there.

Something else you don't hear is how the AR prices have plunged. 25 years ago you had to hunt to find one less than $1,000. You can buy good ones for half that price everywhere now.

There are slide and lever action rifles that would be a heluva problem... but they have limited rounds, they don't use detachable clips.

The bullet also travels faster than other rounds - its absurd. And it's a tiny bullet, so it ricochets and splinters easily when it hits flesh. The round is specifically designed to hurt PEOPLE. Shooting it is easy -- it doesn't kick and it's real accurate and travels super fast. Shooting a 30 - 06 will kick the hell out of you over and over.

 

[Been Jammin]

The bullet also travels faster than other rounds - its absurd. And it's a tiny bullet, so it ricochets and splinters easily when it hits flesh. The round is specifically designed to hurt PEOPLE. Shooting it is easy -- it doesn't kick and it's real accurate and travels super fast. Shooting a 30 - 06 will kick the hell out of you over and over.

You mean the AR-15 bullet, right?

 

[Been Jammin]

Where is he wrong? I'm genuinely looking for accurate info here.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

Honest questions.

Can you do as much damage with each shot?
Are these guys choosing the AR-15 because they expect to eventually be in a shootout with police?
Or because an AR-15 bullet is more likely to pass through a victim and hit another victim behind the first victim?
If the answers to all 3 questions are "no", why do you think a lot of these guys choose the AR-15 over an easier to conceal pistol?
Is it because the magazines hold more bullets and they don't have to stop shooting to reload?

Yes a pistol will do as much damage as a rifle. The rifle's advantage is the ability to shoot accurately at long distances.

I think these young adults are using AR-15's because they think they are cool death machines as portrayed by the media.

Many pistols can hold 20 rounds or more and can be replaced in 2 seconds. Most Ar-15 magazines hold 30.

I have several pistols and several AR-15's and I think about this every time it happens. Why would they want to use an AR-15? There isn't any question what I would carry if I were to shoot up a school. I would carry two pistols and 20 magazines each holding 20 rounds. AR-15's are much much heavier and way more clumsy.

I seem to recall that many of these shootings did involve pistols but they don't get the headlines that the AR-15 gets.

 

[Syskatine]

You mean the AR-15 bullet, right?

Yeah, the AR is generally chambered for the .223 which is fast. Generally only belted magnums (big rounds) and some exotic wildcat rounds go that fast. They also have .308 and the russian short round for the AR platform but I've never heard of them being used in these shootings. It doesn't really make sense, because the AR is a light frame for a light round. That's kind of the thing with it -- it's light to carry as opposed to big ol' heavy .308 and 30-06 guns with heavy wood stocks we used before.

I've never shot a .308 in the AR frame but I'd think it'd be uncomfortable to shoot.

 

[Been Jammin]

I have several pistols and several AR-15's and I think about this every time it happens. Why would they want to use an AR-15? There isn't any question what I would carry if I were to shoot up a school. I would carry two pistols and 20 magazines each holding 20 rounds. AR-15's are much much heavier and way more clumsy.

@HighStickHarry I think we found one to worry about.

 

[Syskatine]

Yes a pistol will do as much damage as a rifle. The rifle's advantage is the ability to shoot accurately at long distances.

I think these young adults are using AR-15's because they think they are cool death machines as portrayed by the media.

Many pistols can hold 20 rounds or more and can be replaced in 2 seconds. Most Ar-15 magazines hold 30.

I have several pistols and several AR-15's and I think about this every time it happens. Why would they want to use an AR-15? There isn't any question what I would carry if I were to shoot up a school. I would carry two pistols and 20 magazines each holding 20 rounds. AR-15's are much much heavier and way more clumsy.

I seem to recall that many of these shootings did involve pistols but they don't get the headlines that the AR-15 gets.

I'd use pistols too. There's a fixation with the AR that has taken on some kind of symbolism. Like... it's america's weapon that secures freedom or something.

Third world coutnries do the same thing with the AK. It's even on flags.

 

[Syskatine]

Yes a pistol will do as much damage as a rifle. The rifle's advantage is the ability to shoot accurately at long distances

Man that .223 is a different animal though. If they're both jacketed without some cop killer feature I think the .223's speed is the deal changer.

They invented the .40 because the FBI got into a shootout and shot some guy umpteen times with a 9mm and he kept coming. I don't think anybody keeps coming after getting shot multiple times in center of mass with a .223.

 

[MegaPoke]

The problem with this theory is that it assumes the weapon of choice doesn't ever change which isnt realistic. As soon as ARs are hard to get, then suddenly every shooting will be done with a guy and 2 gloks. And we've done nothing but moved the bar while restricting rights of law abiding citizens.

Exactly. AR's or AK's are not especially equipped to randomly throw lead into a crowd. Literally any semi-auto anything could do that. No ban will make the slightest dent in solving the problem of mass shootings. Solutions have to come from elsewhere or they are simply transparent encroachments toward the next restriction that also won't work.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

Man that .223 is a different animal though. If they're both jacketed without some cop killer feature I think the .223's speed is the deal changer.

They invented the .40 because the FBI got into a shootout and shot some guy umpteen times with a 9mm and he kept coming. I don't think anybody keeps coming after getting shot multiple times in center of mass with a .223.

I don't completely disagree but I've got to tell you, I don't want to be shot by a 9mm or .223 round. There are plenty of 15-20 round .40 magazines.