I believe the root cause of these mass shootings is messed up people. I can see no other explanation for this, since there weren’t shootings like this when I was a kid with as near this kind of frequency.
I look at Columbine, no AR-15 was used there. The only reason more people weren’t killed is because 1) they were incompetent bomb makers, 2) somebody actually engaged them relatively soon (providing a distraction), 3) they got bored shooting people, and 4) they decided to off themselves before they would have been killed otherwise.
They had plenty more opportunity, and ammo, to kill more people. The actual weapon used had nothing to do with it. The decision to start and stop the attack was the attacker’s alone.
Maybe that’s why Paddock didn’t kill more people too, maybe after 10 minutes of killing it got too boring for him. That’s why he killed himself with tons of guns and unused ammo, nearly an hour and 5 minutes before the cops broke into his room.
Why else stop? After killing a bunch of people, would someone suddenly grow a conscience? In the case of Columbine, Kliebold said “Maybe we should start knifing people, that might be more fun,” indicating boredom of killing people that easily.
Way back in 1915 a man with a double-barreled shotgun killed seven and wounded over thirty; it was thought his body count would have been higher if his shells hadn’t included bird shot:
Semi auto rifles seem to be the weapon of choice for mass shooters but as was said, you can do a mass shooting with a handgun and several have been done. The Columbine shooting had a rifle, but it was a 10 shot that fired handgun bullets. A handgun with an extended clip would do the same damage. other than that they used shotguns and handguns.
At this point, America is so saturated with guns that we really can’t do much. Unless we do what australia did (confiscate all the guns, then pass strict gun control) nothing much will improve the situation. The gun control legislation will prevent some gun crime, but only a small amount.
As I understand it, the AR-15 is the pit-bull of guns, and it has a bad rap as the weapon of choice for the deranged. There are other, deadlier, weapons available.
I am afraid I am going to have to agree with the OP on this. Altho, I will say there should be a ban on the high-capacity magazines available to the public. There is a reason the general public cannot purchase a machine gun, and the same logic applies here with the magazines. Banning this gun wont do much good, but targeting all weapons with high-capacity for mayhem may be an effort better spent.
I agree with this to a point. Assuming we just throw our hands up in the air and not directly address the root cause (a curiously larger amount of messed up people than there were back in my day), then getting rid of all guns is the only answer. Which, of course, will never happen. Using AR-15s as the sacrificial lamb will just make us feel better about “doing something.” It’s going to be an awfully long list of killings if we just go after some flavor of the month weapon whenever there’s a shooting.
I do think toughening up background checks (including an “obviously crazy” check), and raising the limit of ALL guns purchases to 21, possibly would have prevented the parkland shooting, but given the gross incompetence displayed the authorities in this matter, I’m not so sure. I don’t think any of those would have prevented Vegas though, sadly.
The root cause is the easy availability of guns; but as you say nothing will be done about guns, which means we simply have to accept that regular mass shootings are going to be a permanent part of American society for the indefinite future.
And there’s nothing strange about there being more “messed up people”; there are more people in general, so it’s inevitable that there are more irrational ones. But that’s not a problem that much can be done about.
I will agree that banning a specific model or type of gun is pointless.
Targeting one particular type of gun at the level of AR-15 (and even clones) is obviously silly. There’s silly stuff on both sides of the gun debate, but focus on that particular gun as if so different from numerous others is a silly thing on the pro-gun control side.
Even ‘assault weapon’ is a political marketing term with serious drawbacks once it comes to drafting legislation as opposed to ‘motivating’ (or ‘riling up’ I guess depending your POV) the public to take action. I guess in political theory it could be justified as ‘once we build political momentum we’ll write a sensible law’. But in real cases that’s not true. States have literally outlawed guns which have bayonet lugs as ‘assault weapons’ and allowed the same gun if you cut off the bayonet lug. My state (NJ) allows ‘non assault gun’ versions of AR-15/clones but bans all WWII M1 carbines as ‘assault guns’. A real law, so nobody can say ‘assault gun’ rhetoric can’t lead to silly laws.
Banning sale of new box magazine fed centerfire* semi-auto rifles and/or limiting legal box magazine capacity** is a rational proposal in itself. It can be debated whether it would cut down much on mass shootings, or whether the benefit is acceptable put against the loss of freedom for the vast majority of owners who don’t and won’t commit mass shootings. Or whether something much more far reaching is needed. But ‘ban the AR-15’ is an irrational proposal on its face, and ‘assault weapon’ is a term of questionable value as much as some have become attached to it.
*so excluding low power .22 rimfire rounds, though arguably makers could use this as a loophole to introduce new powerful non-centerfire rounds.
**it’s 7 rounds now in NYS for example, and technically illegal to load previous larger mags with more than 7 outside a shooting range etc., though the older mags themselves aren’t retroactively illegal.
He had 23 weapons in his room. I assume most were rifles as handguns and shotguns wouldn’t be useful at that distance (but would help with SWAT teams knocking down his door).
Banning AR-15s would probably do very little. Maybe not nothing, but very little.
The guns are out there. The Genie is out of the bottle, it ain’t going back in. Banning the weapon would mean you would have to purchase them illegally. Most things that are illegal have a thriving black market. There have been draconian sentences for the sale of heroin for decades and I can get a bag in about 20 minutes.
People who are bent on killing a bunch of people are likely not going to be deterred by having to purchase them on the black market. They may have to save up a little longer to meet the price.
Law Enforcement make catch the* occasional *shooter before he can act, and that’s a good thing, but it ain’t the end all that some people would like to think. The Florida shooter did everything but call the Feds himself and give them a date and a time, so I wouldn’t put that much stock in their abilities.
I agree targeting restrictions on a specific weapon will only mean that weapon may not be used in the next mass shooting (something else will be used). Additional restrictions should be focused on those weapons that can mow down lots of people in a short time, like things they use in war. There is no reason for a lawful gun owner to covet, nor need such a weapon in their private possession. If the guy in Vegas could have gotten a hold of a bazooka or RPGs, or a tank, he probably would have used those as well. After Oklahoma City restrictions were put on the amount of fertilizer one could purchase, and supplies are now monitored. It IS possible to sensibly tighten things up without offending people’s rights.
IMHO we should raise the bar on dangerous weaponry and not target specific gun models, and get them out of circulation, along with strengthening the background check system and expansion of mental health services. There is a lot of opportunity for improvement, but it will take guts to get anything done.
I find it hard to believe there aren’t disproportionately more people out on the streets today that are disturbed enough to shoot up a school. In my high school years there were approximately 250 million Americans (1987-1990). There were NO mass shootings in the US during that time, let alone in a school. So there were plenty of people and plenty of guns. Certainly enough that more people and more guns can’t be the only reason. It just doesnt add up to me.
I’m thinking there might be a connection between people being medicated by all these ‘miracle drugs’ and cut loose into the population (and having kids) that otherwise would have been institutionalized. More people in the gene pool than outwise would have been, and not getting selected out. A lot of these shooters have obvious mental illness.
The carbine used at Columbine was a semi-automatic designed to not fall under the then existing ban on assault weapons.
The problem is not trying to define precisely what is an assault weapon. It is simply a question of semi-automatic and cartridge capacity.
When I hunted, IIRC, the state limited shotguns to a total of three shells and the bolt or lever action long guns we used were limited to five or maybe six rounds by design.
We treated waterfowl and whitetail deer with more compassion than our fellow men - who have to face shooters armed with high capacity semi-automatic weapons.
There’s no single thing that is going to fix everything tomorrow. Banning AR-15s won’t, deciding we’re actually going to properly fund school health services won’t, giving all the teachers a bazooka won’t. What you can do is take steps to change things for the future by making weapons harder to acquire or sell/transfer, by putting programs in place, by trying to change the culture.
So sure, say we need more guards in schools but then also agree that lower magazine capacity can help as can expanding mental health services with adequate funding.
Googling the subject up, you’re right and wrong; the rate of mass shooting has gone up, but since 2011. That’s much too recent for it to be due to the decision to dump the majority of mental patients on the streets.