# Another deadly shooting **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 10, 2014, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-deadly-shooting/690488 "2014-06-10T18:04:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-deadly-shooting/690488/121 "2014-06-18T02:36:43Z")
> [@Superdude](#): > > I DO support the right to bear arms. I do NOT think all guns should be banned. But I agree with a ban on assault weapons, because that seems perfectly reasonable to me. YMMV, of course. No, no YMMV. If you support a ban on assault weapons, you are objectively wrong. You do not know or care what an assault weapon actually is - it’s a scary-sounding name for a gun not meaningfully different than any other, and that’s enough for you to support a ban. ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-deadly-shooting/690488/122 "2014-06-18T03:59:17Z")
**Grumman** , I don’t think you and I have ever interacted before. But allow me to say this, quoting Rob Wilco: “oh Bucky, you’re so tiny, yet you’re such a massive nutjob.” You do not know or care what goes on in my head; you don’t know what I know about guns or don’t know. You see someone who disagrees with you, and you think “commie! He wants ta take mah guns!” Suck a bag of dicks. There’s no reason why you need an AR-15 for home defense. You’ll never justify it to me. If you need that many goddamn bullets to shoot an intruder, then you should haul your fat ass to the gun range, and actually TRY to hit the target once in a while, you gravy-sweating cousin-fucker. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-deadly-shooting/690488/123 "2014-06-18T04:37:18Z")
> [@Superdude](#): > > That was exactly what I meant. Thanks for the clarification, **andros** (and, FTR, I’m a “he.” The “dude” part of my name should be a clue). > > I DO support the right to bear arms. I do NOT think all guns should be banned. But I agree with a ban on assault weapons, because that seems perfectly reasonable to me. YMMV, of course. Thanks for the clarification. So you don’t support a total gun ban, but you do support a ban on…the ones that you don’t think other people need. Is that about right? ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-deadly-shooting/690488/124 "2014-06-18T05:07:38Z")
That sounds elitist, when it’s worded that way, **Bone**. I certainly didn’t think of myself that way. But point taken. We have limits on the 2nd Amendment, anyway. You can’t drive a tank on city streets. You can’t own missiles. I don’t recall being able to buy flamethrowers in a standard gun shop. Granted, it’s been a few years since I’ve been in one, so that has maybe changed. I realize I may not have properly answered your question. I’m not ducking the issue (at least, I don’t _think_ I am). I know my objections; I just don’t know how to articulate them. So I want to consider what you’ve said, and how to phrase my response (this is why I don’t post much in GD. I sometimes have trouble articulating adequately). Fair enough? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-deadly-shooting/690488/125 "2014-06-18T05:22:30Z")
Sure thing. I generally think of how people feel about an AWB as a litmus test for those that are knowledgeable about 2nd amendment issues. There are of course many other major and minor issues, but an AWB is talked about enough that folks who have given thought to the issue should know their position. There are several people on this board that support expansive restrictions on gun rights, but simultaneously do not support an AWB. The reason is because the AWB is largely superficial and relies on banning purely cosmetic or aesthetic items. Add that to the fact that a vanishingly small amount of crimes are committed with ‘assault weapons’ and it’s clear that any type of AWB would be for show only. Whenever any type of new law is discussed, it’s important to keep in mind what the goal of the law actually is. If the results are not consistent with the goal, then the law should be reconsidered as it would be ineffective. In addition to that, I think it’s important to re-evaluate your position when it is based on determining what other people need. It’s a pretty terrible way to craft laws. > [@Superdude](#): > > We have limits on the 2nd Amendment, anyway. You can’t drive a tank on city streets. You can’t own missiles. I don’t recall being able to buy flamethrowers in a standard gun shop. Granted, it’s been a few years since I’ve been in one, so that has maybe changed. We have limits, yes. Some of those are being fleshed out and litigated. Tanks are not subject to the 2nd amendment. And btw, you [can drive a tank on city streets.](http://www.khou.com/video/featured-videos/Tennessee-man-owns-a-street-legal-tank-260301631.html) Missiles are not covered by the 2nd amendment. I’m not sure about flamethrowers, but [you can have them apparently](http://www.cracked.com/article_17016_7-items-you-wont-believe-are-actually-legal.html) (cracked cite :)) ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-deadly-shooting/690488/126 "2014-06-18T06:04:32Z")
> [@Superdude](#): > > We have limits on the 2nd Amendment, anyway. You can’t drive a tank on city streets. You can’t own missiles. I don’t recall being able to buy flamethrowers in a standard gun shop. There are no federal restrictions on owning flamethrowers. Maybe some states have some, I don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-deadly-shooting/690488/127 "2014-06-18T06:08:39Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I feel _much_ better now! Wait until we inform that child’s parents that, overall, they’re doing pretty damn good! > > Jackass. As much as I hate to agree with **Terr** , facts should trump emotions. I realize that the child’s parents are distraught. But the fact is that gun violence is way, _way_ down. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-deadly-shooting/690488/128 "2014-06-18T08:27:33Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > As much as I hate to agree with **Terr** , facts should trump emotions. I realize that the child’s parents are distraught. But the fact is that gun violence is way, _way_ down. Really? Way, \*way \*down? What numbers are you looking at? **US: Non-fatal firearm victims** 2011: 53,197 2010: 47,172 2009: 48,765 2008: 45,794 2007: 55,886 2006: 61,310 2005: 55,594 2004: 47,513 2003: 47,783 2002: 50,299 2001: 53,309 2000: 55,220 1999: 54,713 \*\*US: Total firearm deaths \*\* 2011: 32,163 2010: 31,672 2009: 31,347 2008: 31,593 2007: 31,224 2006: 30,896 2005: 30,694 2004: 29,569 2003: 30,136 **US: Total firearm homicides** 2011: 11,101 2010: 11,078 2009: 11,493 2008: 12,179 2007: 12,632 2006: 12,791 2005: 12,352 2004: 11,624 2003: 11,920 2002: 11,829 2001: 11,348 2000: 10,801 1999: 10,828 Data from CDC, Bureau of Justice Statistics etc. Don’t know about you, but I don’t see how anyone would describe those numbers as being ‘way, \*way \*down’. Compared to when? The crack-fueled crime-infested 70s and 80s? Is -that- how low we’re willing to set the standard for measuring ‘progress’? ‘Only hundreds of thousands’ of gunshot victims? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-deadly-shooting/690488/129 "2014-06-18T08:32:08Z")
…Huh. Time to check my sources better. Ignorance fought! (This is what I get for agreeing with **Terr**. -.- ) ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-deadly-shooting/690488/130 "2014-06-18T09:02:36Z")
While we’re at it, one more: **US: Total firearm suicides** 2011: 19,766 2010: 19,392 2009: 18,735 2008: 18,223 2007: 17,352 2006: 16,883 2005: 17,002 2004: 16,750 2003: 16,907 2002: 17,108 2001: 16,869 2000: 16,586 1999: 16,599 ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-deadly-shooting/690488/131 "2014-06-18T11:22:23Z")
**DragonAsh** , just to be clear, those are violence related non-fatal firearm injuries, right? Because the US total non-fatal firearm injury numbers from all intents run about 30k higher than those. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-deadly-shooting/690488/132 "2014-06-18T13:09:08Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > …Huh. Time to check my sources better. Ignorance fought! > > (This is what I get for agreeing with **Terr**. -.- ) The rates are down. He’s just giving you total numbers. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-deadly-shooting/690488/133 "2014-06-18T13:48:36Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > Really? Way, \*way \*down? What numbers are you looking at? Way down from 70s, 80s and 90s. Just like I said. Funny why you didn’t cite the numbers from then? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-deadly-shooting/690488/134 "2014-06-18T15:11:01Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You also get a vision check and can also be required to take a new road test for a renewal, at least in most states. And your car gets a safety inspection every year. I’m OK with a vision check eery 5 or 10 years. Are you suggesting that we have the state inspect our guns every year to make sure theya re operating properly? > [@](#): > > Are you going to claim there is some vastly-greater number of lesser cases that are, conveniently for you, uncountable and, for some mystifying reason, rarely even reported? Asshole. Yes that’s exactly what I am suggesting you fucking retard. The US Department of Justice collects data on these cases and they come up with 100,000 cases where guns are uaed defensively. And I think even THAT number is very consrvative in measuring instances where guns are used defensively. Of course the gun might not have been the crucial factor in deterring crime (mere confrontation of the criminal might have been enough but I would rather confront a criminal with a gun than with harsh words). > [@](#): > > As you know, it only limited new sales. No wonder it made no difference And what do you think the proposed AWB did? Are you under the impression that the new AWB confiscated all outstanding assault weapons? The proposed AWB would have been just as ineffective as the last one. > [@](#): > > (if that is, in fact, true, and coming from you that cannot be assumed). Do some fucking research you lazy peice of shit. All rifles combined account for a remarkably small percentage of gunmurders (~3%). Assault weapons account for a small percentage of all rifles. How much effect could a ban on the sale of new assault weapons have pssibly had? > [@](#): > > Do you ever hear yourself speak? You’re actually opposing anything that can make a difference, for that reason alone. Gleefully. WTF are you talking about you half a retard (the worse half)? I am saying that when you waste all your resources on something as stupid and retarded as an AWB, you end up with nothing, you certainly don’t get any meaningful regulatioin that could actually make a difference. Idiots like youa re the gun cotnrol lobby’s worst enemy. > [@](#): > > Every time it has come up. Cite? I think you are hearing voices in your head. > [@](#): > > What does a “majority” mean to you? Asshole. That very statement epitomizes glee, btw. WTF are you talking about? The background checks at gun shows was going to have no effect on gun violence. the only reason youa re so butthurt about its failure is because it rubbed your nose in how completetly you had squandered the political capital your side of the argument had gained from Newtown. Good job, you just out-stupidded the NRA. > [@](#): > > More glee about more deaths. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > You’re even opposed to things you claim are meaningless. Gleefully. I am usally especially opposed to things that are meaningless and I wasn’t opposed to the Manchin-Toomey bill at the time there is a difference between not caring that the bill died and being gleeful that it died. I think youa re hearing voices in your head. > [@](#): > > Same point that there is in cars. If you’re going to claim a parallel, claim it all the way. And do NOT fucking come out against basic safety. What basic safety purpose is being served by inspecting all our guns every year? Or is it your opinion that making gun ownership more burdensome is in itself a basic safety measure? > [@andros](#): > > **Damuri** , if annual re-certification is out of the question–and I agree that’s onerous–what would be acceptable for a firearm competency exam? Every five years? Every ten? > > Many states are pushing for stricter auto licensing requirements for the elderly, particularly as Boomers age. Would it be reasonable to ensure that an 85yo grandma is competent to maintain and handle a firearm? I think a periodic vision exam is reasonable. I think that the licensing system would keep track of whether or not someone is legally permitted to possess a firearm o your license would be revoked if you committed a felony or beat your wife. I don’t know what you mean by firearm competency exam? What do you have in mind? > [@Superdude](#): > > **Damuri** , why would yearly re-certification be right out? I was talking about competency exams. What do you envision these competency exams would look like? If its just a matter of getting on the internet and re-registering yourself, I would ask, whats the point. > [@Superdude](#): > > There’s no reason why you need an AR-15 for home defense. You’ll never justify it to me. If you need that many goddamn bullets to shoot an intruder, then you should haul your fat ass to the gun range, and actually TRY to hit the target once in a while, you gravy-sweating cousin-fucker. An assault weapon is not defined by how many rounds it holds. The old AWB defined an assault weapon as a weapon that had any two of a long list of a features. So a gun with a bayonet lug and an adjustable stock was an assault weapon. The proposed AWB would have banned weapons that had any ONE of those features. What you are talking about sounds more like a cap on magazine capacity. The typical AR-15 has a magazine that holds 30 rounds. Popular handguns hold anywhere from 7 to 17 rounds. The high capacity magazine is defined as any detachable magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. The most popular pistol in the country holds 15 rounds. Personally, I don’t give a shit about capacity. I can change a magazine in about 2 seconds. It would be irritating but if you could show me some significant benefits to limiting magazine capacity, I can live with a little iritation (although 10 seems sort of low). > [@Bone](#): > > Thanks for the clarification. > > So you don’t support a total gun ban, but you do support a ban on…the ones that you don’t think other people need. Is that about right? > [@Superdude](#): > > That sounds elitist, when it’s worded that way, **Bone**. I certainly didn’t think of myself that way. But point taken… > > I know my objections; I just don’t know how to articulate them. So I want to consider what you’ve said, and how to phrase my response (this is why I don’t post much in GD. I sometimes have trouble articulating adequately). > > Fair enough? It seems to me that you don’t have a problem with the cosmetic bullshit that makes an assault weapon an assault weapon. You are more concerned about the capacity of the gun because you have heard stories about how we stopped trampage shooters while they were changing magazines (see Gabbie Giffords shooting). If you could show me that this was not an isolated incident and that magazine size has a measurable impact on gun violence I could see your point, otherwise you might be supporting gun control that does nothing to reduce gun violence. > [@DragonAsh](#): > > Really? Way, \*way \*down? What numbers are you looking at? > > **US: Non-fatal firearm victims** > …1999: 54,713 > > \*\*US: Total firearm deaths \*\* > …2003: 30,136 > > **US: Total firearm homicides** > …1999: 10,828 > > Data from CDC, Bureau of Justice Statistics etc. He is probably talking about today’s numbers compared to the numbers in the early 1990s Gun violence dropped dramatically through the 1990s and then plateaued in the late 1990s. Since then gun violence RATE has been relatively level over time (maybe dropping a little bit). > [@](#): > > Don’t know about you, but I don’t see how anyone would describe those numbers as being ‘way, \*way \*down’. Compared to when? The crack-fueled crime-infested 70s and 80s? Is -that- how low we’re willing to set the standard for measuring ‘progress’? ‘Only hundreds of thousands’ of gunshot victims? The peak was 1993 IIRC. Some people think vilence is more closely linked to lead in our gasoline than crack. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-deadly-shooting/690488/135 "2014-06-18T15:13:11Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Way down from 70s, 80s and 90s. Just like I said. Funny why you didn’t cite the numbers from then? I don’t know that the CDC numbers go back that far. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-deadly-shooting/690488/136 "2014-06-18T15:29:31Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > Really? Way, \*way \*down? What numbers are you looking at? [Maybe these.](http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/) > [@](#): > > Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades. > > Nearly all the decline in the firearm homicide rate took place in the 1990s; the downward trend stopped in 2001 and resumed slowly in 2007. The victimization rate for other gun crimes plunged in the 1990s, then declined more slowly from 2000 to 2008. The rate appears to be higher in 2011 compared with 2008, but the increase is not statistically significant. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall also dropped in the 1990s before declining more slowly from 2000 to 2010, then ticked up in 2011. > > Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago. According to a new Pew Research Center survey, today 56% of Americans believe gun crime is higher than 20 years ago and only 12% think it is lower. Perhaps you are in the 56% camp? Using raw figures without adjusting for population gives you uninformative results. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-deadly-shooting/690488/137 "2014-06-19T10:14:21Z")
Overall crime rates are down, so yes, I’d expect a corresponding decline in firearm violence - as quoted above, ‘non-fatal crime victimization with or without a firearm’ declined 72%…yet firearm homicides were only down 49%. I know why the gun lickers want to stick to making every comparison to the peak bad years - every comparision looks great! ’ See, gun violence is down! There’s no need to do anything’ appears to be a favorite stance among the gun lickers.The more relevant question is to ask why the rate declined (was it merely due to a decline in overall crime? Is the decline in fatalities due mostly to better emergency response & medical treatment?), and why has the rate of decline slowed or actually reversed in recent years? I don’t think we should be doing cartwheels in the streets about ‘only 30,000 gunshot deaths despite a growing population! America’s #1!’. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-deadly-shooting/690488/138 "2014-06-19T13:23:29Z")
How about a vision check and a mental health check every 5 years? ---
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-deadly-shooting/690488/139 "2014-06-19T13:47:41Z")
But **dragonash** , see, you haven’t even attempted to answer those questions. Your take seems to be “WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING!” without actually looking at any root causes. Come up with a real plan and we’ll discuss it. People like you are the reason we have a ban on “assault weapons” that can’t even define an “assault weapon”. It’s a stupid law that doesn’t actually do anything, but it got support because wanted to do _something_. They didn’t know what they wanted to do, but damnit, they were going to do it anyway, by God. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-deadly-shooting/690488/140 "2014-06-19T13:53:26Z")
> [@racepug](#): > > I don’t know about the rest of you but I’m getting quite sick and tired of hearing about mass killings being done in this country and even MORE sick and tired of hearing “2nd Amendment!!” hollered out any time anybody with a sane, working brain suggests that measures be taken to try to avoid the killings. It’s because we are tired of the retarded measures that are taken: disarm law-abiding citizens and leave the criminals free to act unhindered. The solution is exactly the opposite. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-deadly-shooting/690488.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-deadly-shooting/690488.md?page=8)