This is what the gun control law should be in the US.

Perhaps the reason more men are successful at ending their own existence is because they are simply more serious about such, rather than merely seeking the attention of others through empty attempts.

 

I was paying attention as you waded deep into tin hat territory. The media was covering the shootings of 20 6 and 7 year olds for profit? The more sensational the tragedy the better? Wow.
And then you complain about the term "mass shooting". It is debatable. But Uncle Bill killing 6 members of his family can't be called a mass shooting? How about a guy shooting 12, intending to kill them but they survive, can it be called a mass shooting? Does motive or body count play the primary role?
I read Wiki...did you notice how some countries dealt with their mass shooting problem and how we do not?

 

And...?
Most men use a gun.

You are itching to discuss the gray area....it remains a gray area doesn't it

That we should try to prevent the murder of 20 6 and 7 year olds? Why wouldn't I mean that? You must have more self-serving interests.
.

 

Or they use a more lethal means.

 

Well, you demonstrated you weren’t paying attention. That’s not close to the jest of what I wrote. Go back and try again. And, BTW, I didn’t make any distinctions regarding body count as the nexus of what I wrote. Try again, get it wrong, and I will step you through it, but as a clue, what is the difference between the Las Vega instance, Parkland, a LA gang drive by, or someone that murders their entire family?

 

Tell me what I got wrong in tin hat territory and I was demonstrating how debatable the definition of mass shooting is.

 

What I opined was that when the term mass shooting is used it evokes the image of a shooter wielding a scary black gun to wreak a huge body count when the term’s use is so broad the it loses useful meaning. The term and the image it evokes is leveraged when statistics on ‘mass’ shootings are reported, conflating the image above with a huge, and larger array of instances labeled mass shootings that represent everything from gang drivebys and shootouts to criminals eliminating witnesses during the execution of a crime or shooting at numbers of people to escape a crime scene. The motives, scale, weapons, and other elements in instances labeled ‘Mass shooting’ as defined by the criteria of body count ignore a more useful potential for categorization of simularities of these instances that would offer a better means to seek preventative measures. The Sandy Hook and Parkland instances differ from mass shootings in LA gang territory and those like Los Vegas; and given the differences, a one size solution will not be found. The conflation of instances of ‘mass’ shootings with the image of the assault wielding gunman is promulgated by anti gun advocates and the leftist media because their goal is to create emotional and inflate perception of high risk as justification of sweeping gun control measures rather than trying to understand why certain types, categories, of mass shootings occur and how to develop effective measures that will work.
An analogy might be applying the general term ‘mental illness’. There are many conditions that fall under that umbrella term, but it covers so many different condition manifested in many different ways that there is no one size solution, but when we begin to understand many conditions are different and others similar and we begin to develop categories of similarity we can identify and tailor different treatments that are effective for different classes of condition.
The various studies referenced by the Wikipedia page on Mass Shootings evidence to show the differences in instances and why we struggle to find effective solutions.

 

Ah. You understand the mindless inanity of the 'assault weapon' ban, and thus, your refusal to discuss it, even after trolling for a discussion on same.

"We should do everything in our power" you said. You don't really mean it.

 

Perhaps they opt to use a more lethal means, simply because they are serious about wishing to end their own existence, while others are not actually serious and merely wish the attention of others.

If these individuals wish to end their own existence, why should society see fit to employ so much effort to try and prevent such from occurring?

 

Okay, let's ignore the conspiracy theory and despite your vast verbiage we agree the definition of mass shooting is squishy. You seem to think it over dramatizes the issue. I don't. People need to be upset about it and not let this continue in a civilized society. Other societies have handled the issue. The term "mass shooting" needs to be used to describe and quantify a trend in society that should be controlled and not ignored. The underlying causes of mass shootings have always been examined that fall under the umbrella term.

 

Who's trolling? All I said the gray area is interesting and you go on about it. It is interesting. It was an experiment that did not go on long enough per the experts in the field because of the exemptions to the law. I would have chosen high capacity magazines instead.
And you believe we should do absolutely nothing to prevent another Sandy Hook?

 

Why? What does it tell you?

By that, you mean liberal politicians and anti-gun groups...

What sort of "exemptions"?

You aren't aware of the fact the 1994 AWB also banned standard capacity magazines?

You said "We should do everything in our power". You don't really mean it.
Disagree?
Tell us how you support allowing certain faculty and staff to carry a firearm while at work.

 

I believe some on here think we should do absolutely nothing to prevent mass shootings

 

I do think the risk by ‘mass’ shooting’ is perceived to be far larger that it is. Some mass shootings are sensationalized to the extent that public perception would be of thousands of victims annually, when, in fact the number of fatalities are minuscule in the numbers attributed to fire arms annually, not unlike perception of the numbers attributed to ‘assault weapons’.



Because much of the public has the Pavlovian images of Parkland, Las Vegas, or Sandy Hook when they hear the ideom, ‘Mass Shooting’ when the majority of them are actually closer to victim counts in the lower end of the spectrum to be classified as a ‘Mass Shooting’. When told of the count of incidence of ‘Mass Shootings’ as opposed to the total number of actual victims, most have a perception of victims magnitudes higher than the actual numbers. More people die from accidents with firearms annually than ‘Mass Shootings’.

Does that mean we shouldn’t be concerned and not try to find solutions? No. What is needed is developing better approaches to understanding the simularities and differences in instances we class as mass shootings using only the criteria of body count while ignoring other potentiallly useful criteria for classing and analysis such as motive, venue, social context, etc.

In all the years of examining Mass Shootings we are not close to developing solutions in part because we have yet to identify classifying criteria from which we can develop a better understanding of how and why they occur, how to prevent them, and how to minimize them when they occur and in part because of the politicization of mass shootings that political opportunists weaponized to drive their agendas.

While GCAs will want to dismiss the following article because of the conservative source, it still provides insight...
https://www.heritage.org/firearms/commentary/6-reasons-gun-control-will-not-solve-mass-killings

 

So are you proposing some sort of law that would further restrict the ability of the people of the several states from possessing firearms?

 

Irrelevant. No other society is comparable to the united states on this particular matter, therefore they cannot be used as an example of what was done or was not done.

They have not.

 

You seem to be more interested in the '94 AWB than I am. This may answer some of your questions....https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/
Oh, and about the large capacity magazine "ban":
"The ban contained a loophole, however, allowing for the continued transfer, and possession of large capacity ammunition magazines manufactured or possessed on or before enactment of the law.
Manufacturers took advantage of this loophole in the months leading up to the ban by boosting production of the magazines. As a result, they continued to be readily available—and legal—nationwide even during the time the 1994 Act was in effect" https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/hardware-ammunition/large-capacity-magazines/
Hardening measures fine but arming schools and places of worship seems to me is adding fuel to fire. Gun advocates seem to think the answer to a gun problem is more guns.

 

Like repealing 2A?

 

Research has been going on all the time although the NRA tried to suppress it. https://www.ucsusa.org/suppressing-research-effects-gun-violence#.XAMs-2hKiM8

 

I asked -you- why -you- thought the mention of the 1994 AWB was interesting, after -you- brought it up.
Apparently, you can't tell me.

Good to see you now know there was a standard-capacity magazine ban from 1994-2004.
How did you not know that before today?

And so, as I said, you aren't -really- interested in doing "everything in our power".
That said, why do you make such a statement?

 

Wait... did you -really- just suggest the repeal of the 2nd Amendment?

 

Is that what you're proposing?

 

-Your- source says that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control."
I'm sure you'll agree that's not the same things as "suppressing research", as you claimed.
Were you ignorant of the particulars, or did you choose to mislead us?

 

Gun apologists are afraid of the truth.

 

Reread 1711, 1717