"Assault weapons" and school attacks

[Aguila Blanca]

Make no mistake about it, the gun grabbers are salivating over the realization that this school shooting involved an AR-15, providing them a perfect excuse to renew their efforts to ban them. Is banning "assault weapons" going to make schools safer? Unlikely. Please consider the most recent TEN school shootings in the United States:

Parkland ... Assault weapon=Yes
Sal Castro Middle School ... Assault weapon=No
Marshall County H.S. ... Assault weapon=No
Italy H.S. ... Assault weapon=No
Aztec H.S. ... Assault weapon=No
Mattoon H.S. ... Assault weapon=No
Freeman H.S. ... Assault weapon=Yes
Lithia Springs H.S. ... Assault weapon=No
North Park Elementary School ... Assault weapon=No
Marysville Pilchuck H.S. ... Assault weapon=No

Food for thought ...

[spacemanspiff]

I've noticed that more people refer to these as 'weapons of war'. Makes it sound more scary and lethal and worthy of prohibition than piddly ol 'assault weapons'.

[Aguila Blanca]

^^^ Further designed by the gun grabbers to make the general public think the AR-15 is the same as an M16.

[44 AMP]

I just skimmed through the proposed Assault Weapon Ban of 2018, and tis very comprehensive.

Essentially every semi auto that has a folding stock, or pistol grip, or threaded barrel, or barrel shroud, (and a few other listed features) is now defined as an Assault Weapon, and is illegal to possess, or transfer. Semi auto and ONE listed feature is enough.

Magazines and all "feeding devices" are limited to 10 rounds. Everything after the effective date of the act will have serial numbers and date of manufacture on it.

The only mention of grandfathering anything was for retired LEO who could keep their duty assault weapon, if the agency agreed to sell it to them....

This is (if passed) "Mr & Mrs America, turn them all in!" There is a section dealing with what funds could be used for buy back programs, but in general there is no mention of compensation for the taking of our property, other than a vague implication that we will not be prosecuted....

There are multiple pages in the bill listing what is covered, and what is not covered, by specific make and model names. It is interesting that there are pages and pages of pump, lever, bolt action, single shots, over & unders, and SxS guns listed by name, seems like nearly everything in current production that isn't a semi auto is listed as "not" covered by the bill.

tube magazine .22s are exempt, Ruger Mini-14 and 10/22 IF they don't have a folding stock. ALL AR and AK pattern rifles, no matter what caliber are declared Assault Weapons...

You can keep your M1 Garand, or M1 carbine (if no folding stock), but it appears an M1A is also an assault weapon under this bill.

Personally, I'd love to see this one go down in flames, but there is a real risk.

Also I noticed a section that stated that if any section of the bill is found to be unconstitutional, the rest of the bill (law) remains in force.

Can they do that???

[cdoc42]

44AMP do you have a link to the proposal? I searched but found only news reports that provide no detail for any discussion of the pros and cons of the details.

I see it was introduced by Feinstein and the news tonight revealed she is not in a good position to get the nod for backing for re-election.

[Buzzcook]

Parkland ... Assault weapon=Yes 17 killed 14 wounded
Sal Castro Middle School ... Assault weapon=No 2 wounded, apparent AD
http://abc7.com/charges-filed-agains...oting/3023846/
Marshall County H.S. ... Assault weapon=No 2 killied 18 injured.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsha...chool_shooting
Italy H.S. ... Assault weapon=No One person wounded
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ooting-n840301
Aztec H.S. ... Assault weapon=No 2 killed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_...chool_shooting
Mattoon H.S. ... Assault weapon=No 2 injured. stopped by unarmed female teacher. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...921-story.html
Freeman H.S. ... Assault weapon=Yes 1 killed 3 wounded
http://www.king5.com/article/news/lo.../293-474436713
Lithia Springs H.S. ... Assault weapon=No suicide no others threatened.
https://www.ajc.com/news/breaking-ne...V36oIKlTRuVZO/
North Park Elementary School ... Assault weapon=No murder suicide 1 accidental victim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_...chool_shooting
Marysville Pilchuck H.S. ... Assault weapon=No 4 killed 1 wounded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marysv...chool_shooting

Food for thought ...

17 dead at Parkland 11 killed in previous ten shootings. So school shootings happen with various types of firearms. School shootings using semi-auto rifles with high capacity magazines tend to have a high rate of fatality.
The fatality rate also varies by the intent of the shooter.

Here's a list of school shooting in America, including the ones listed above
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

Here's a list of the deadliest mass school shootings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._by_death_toll

[LogicMan]

Originally Posted by Buzzcook

17 dead at Parkland 11 killed in previous ten shootings. So school shootings happen with various types of firearms. School shootings using semi-auto rifles with high capacity magazines tend to have a high rate of fatality.
The fatality rate also varies by the intent of the shooter.

There were 34 killed in the Virginia Tech Massacre and that used two hand guns. Also don't use the term "high-capacity magazine," because it is a lie. The idea that anything over ten rounds constitutes high-capacity is something that was arbitrarily made up by the gun control proponents. What they are really talking about are standard capacity magazines and wanting to limit people to reduced-capacity magazines.

Semiautomatic guns that take detachable magazines period allow a person to kill more people in a mass shooting. The thing is, to outlaw all semiautomatic guns that take detachable magazines would:

1) Limit people to 19th century firearm technology for the most part

2) Constitute a blatant infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, both in the sense of individual self-defense and also resistance to tyranny

3) Not do much of anything for decades as tens or hundreds of millions of such guns remain in circulation and unless there was some kind of large-scale confiscation, it would take probably a generation to make a difference, and by then, the problem of mass shootings would probably have been solved by other means altogether, making the whole effort pointless

The important facts IMO are:

1) The tearing down of the mental health system to protect people's rights has come with the cost of lots of legitimately mentally ill people wandering around who really need to be receiving treatment. Not sure how to solve this but it likely has contributed to some of these mass shootings involving the truly mentally ill

2) Terrorism has been responsible for at least three of the mass shootings. If Muslim terrorism wasn't an issue, then Fort Hood, San Bernardino, and the Orlando Nightclub shooting would never have happened

3) These types of guns have been available for many decades and yet only very recently have they become a problem.

That is why, until Newtown, most people in the media knew nothing about the AR-15. Remember when Newtown happened and journalists were exclaiming, "Automatic fire weapons should be outlawed!" "No one needs an AR-47/AK-15!" etc...now they are all pretty familiar with the AR because it has been used in these shootings, but before then, it was pretty unknown. That is how little it has been used in crime and mass shootings until recently. So the guns are not the issue.

[LogicMan]

Originally Posted by spacemanspiff

I've noticed that more people refer to these as 'weapons of war'. Makes it sound more scary and lethal and worthy of prohibition than piddly ol 'assault weapons'.

Almost all firearms used by the general public are weapons of war. That's what the right to keep and bear arms is about. Arms are arms, tools of combat. If someone is trying to maim and/or kill you, that person has declared a state of war on your person, and you have a right to make war back on them in self-defense. As such, you can respond with force using arms, i.e. tools of war. The right to arms is not a right to special "non-military" weapons deemed "appropriate" for the lowly citizens by the Big All-Powerful Government.

Personally, I think the gun rights movement only hurts itself by trying to claim that AR-15s are not weapons of war. To me, they very much are. I would embrace the claim and defend it. No, they aren't the version the military uses (as that has automatic fire capability) but they can still very much be used by soldiers in war.

But so are handguns like the .45 and the 9mm, two very common handguns used by civilians. So are 12 gauge pump-action shotguns loaded with 00 buckshot, extremely common with civilians. The 12 gauge was known as the "Trench Broom" in WWI and the Germans wanted U.S. soldiers captured using it to be tried for war crimes. Bolt-action rifles are also extremely common with civilians. The Army uses a version of the Remington 700 bolt-action hunting rifle as a sniper rifle. The Marines also use a variant of it as a sniper rifle. And of course all bolt-action hunting rifles trace their design to the first bolt-actions, which were explicitly designed as military guns. Lever-actions were designed as military guns.

They are ALL weapons of war and have their own unique characteristics that make them better for killing than other guns. Bolt-actions are great for sniper rifles because they are extremely accurate and powerful. Handguns are easily concealed and thus make great backup weapons for soldiering, and great self-defense weapons for civilians when out-and-about (can't lug a 12 gauge or AR-15 everywhere and might attract unwanted attention even if it is legal in the area). Shotguns are great for pure stopping power and probably suppressive fire, and also hitting multiple targets. Semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines are great as general-purpose weapons, and have wide usage, from civilian self-defense, to military use, to law enforcement use, to hunting, to target shooting, and last but not least, fighting a tyranny should one ever arise.

One could thus come up with a reason to ban each and every type of gun. Too many people think of firearms as a specific "military" tool. They are not. Firearms are a generic, everyperson's tool, and one that the military just happens to use. Firearms are about as "military" as four-wheel-drive, i.e. something the military uses, but something also a common tool among ordinary citizens.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Also I noticed a section that stated that if any section of the bill is found to be unconstitutional, the rest of the bill (law) remains in force.

Can they do that???

Yes, it's a severability clause, and it's about as common as dirt. I wouldn't propose legislation that didn't have one.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

There are multiple pages in the bill listing what is covered, and what is not covered, by specific make and model names. It is interesting that there are pages and pages of pump, lever, bolt action, single shots, over & unders, and SxS guns listed by name, seems like nearly everything in current production that isn't a semi auto is listed as "not" covered by the bill.

You can tell they used the original 1994 ban list as the basis. Some of those listed firearms haven’t been made in 20-30 years and there are probably less than a 1000 in existence. The list itself is pure propaganda and unnecessary. It is just there so antis can point to it and say “Look at all the firearms expressly legal under this law. This is in no way confiscation!” That’s why they repeatedly list different variants of the same firearm over and over again - to make it look more expansive than it is.

[Tom Servo]

You can tell they used the original 1994 ban list as the basis.

This is Feinstein's post-1994 revision, which she submits every session. For some reason, the media is crediting Reps. David Cicilline and Ted Deutch for it, but I think that's because Feinstein is facing a serious primary challenge in California. You can tell my the inclusion of the Wilkinson Linda and Calico carbines

The full text is available here. It's the exact same bill as the 2013 version they claimed was a response to Newtown.

[adamBomb]

There were 34 killed in the Virginia Tech Massacre and that used two hand guns.

Yes but I don't think anyone on these boards would try to compare a rifle to a pistol. We all know the differences and advantages/disadvantages of each. Overall a rifle is a much more powerful, has a higher capacity, and can shoot much farther and accurately. The vegas killer could of never used a pistol to do what he did.

The thing is, to outlaw all semiautomatic guns that take detachable magazines would:

1) Limit people to 19th century firearm technology for the most part

2) Constitute a blatant infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, both in the sense of individual self-defense and also resistance to tyranny

If banning certain guns infringes on our right to keep and bear arms then so does the ban on nuclear bombs, anthrax, etc.

[Tom Servo]

If banning certain guns infringes on our right to keep and bear arms then so does the ban on nuclear bombs, anthrax, etc.

That's a somewhat facetious argument. Nuclear and biological weaponry can't really be used without the potential for horrific collateral damage. Firearms can.

[zukiphile]

Somewhat facetious?

Anthrax is a bacterial disease rather than an arm. Anthrax is a weapon roughly the same way a small pox ridden blanket is a weapon; it isn't. Nuclear weapons are a strategic outlier unrelated to personal weaponry. The right described in the 2d Am. is a right of persons. It's tough to stretch that into a universally held right to strategic weaponry, as our non-proliferation efforts with North Korea may indicate.

The argument that banning certain firearms is consistent with the 2d Am. because it leaves some firearms unbanned rests on a misreading of the amendment itself.

The 2d Am. does not read:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear at least one arm, shall not be infringed.

The rationale of Caetano is clear on this. Leaving some arms unbanned doesn't work as excuse to ban others.

Buckley v. Valeo left in place some infringements of free speech rights. That isn't a good basis for instituting a prior restraint on, say, sociology professors opining on 2d Am. issues. We certainly wouldn't say that it should be permissible to impose prior restraints on the speech of sociology professors by arguing that we don't impose prior restraint on the speech of math and philosophy professors.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Essentially every semi auto that has a folding stock, or pistol grip, or threaded barrel, or barrel shroud, (and a few other listed features) is now defined as an Assault Weapon, and is illegal to possess, or transfer. Semi auto and ONE listed feature is enough.

This is (if passed) "Mr & Mrs America, turn them all in!" There is a section dealing with what funds could be used for buy back programs, but in general there is no mention of compensation for the taking of our property, other than a vague implication that we will not be prosecuted....

I suspect that if something like that passed, it would also ultimately be upheld by the courts. The courts may flex their muscles a little but does it really matter if 90% or so of the damage of the law is retained? The courts are completely AWOL on gun rights.

[Pond, James Pond]

I've raised this before, but never has it been met with much warmth and I don't understand why.

Why isn't there being carried out some serious, comprehensive research into the drivers behind school shootings?

School shootings (as well as other indiscriminate mass-shootings in a public setting) are clearly a well-defined sub-group of homicidal behaviour.
For such a sub-group of develop (and grow) there must be a common thread of stressors that prompt someone into becoming an active shooter.

These shootings happen because of a reason and we all know that guns are not that reason. We know it, the anti-gun campaigners know it even if they won't blare it from the rooftops.

Everyone on this forum who is concerned about the risk to their gun rights should be hammering on their keyboards demanding that research be carried out and I don't know why it is not the case. I've heard all the arguments about psychiatric medication, video games, hollywood etc, but that is all conjecture.

How can you hope to defend your rights if those rights remain the easiest target?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by PJP

For such a sub-group of develop (and grow) there must be a common thread of stressors that prompt someone into becoming an active shooter.

Why do you conclude that the cause must be common? In some of these attacks (France/Hebdo) the motive is religious obligation and reward. In others, racial animus is present. Resentment and alienation seem present in some.

Mass shooting is a rare act. Statistical conclusions about rare acts may be dubious.

It is not my intent to be dismissive, glib or callous, but when someone commits a violent crime my curiosity about whether he was breast-fed or bullied is fairly subdued.

[Lohman446]

I've noticed that more people refer to these as 'weapons of war'. Makes it sound more scary and lethal and worthy of prohibition than piddly ol 'assault weapons'.

Some European gun laws reference "weapons of war" in regards to various common military calibers (9MM and .223 for example). If we were to enact laws with limited scope it could mean an AR-15 in .223 was verboten while one in 6.5 Creedmoor would not be.

[Pond, James Pond]

Why do you conclude that the cause must be common?

The fact that the shootings happen in schools.
That they typically involve shooting as multiple unarmed targets, rather than a single person.
That often the perpetrators commit suicide.

I'd say that where there are common features, the existence of common motivators is not beyond the realm of the imagination.

Serial killers are rare, but that hasn't stopped the FBI from successfully profiling such people in a way that has probably aided in their capture.

Why not try to understand what is going on?

It is not my intent to be dismissive, glib or callous, but when someone commits a violent crime my curiosity about whether he was breast-fed or bullied is fairly subdued.

I'm sure you recognise the benefits in understanding what kind of person might commit such acts. If you know who to look for, then prevention is that bit easier, if not easy.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by PJP

I'm sure you recognise the benefits in understanding what kind of person might commit such acts. If you know who to look for, then prevention is that bit easier, if not easy.

It could be interesting. I have doubts about its utility in forecasting behavior, and how that forecast might be used. I could tell you that murderers share an insufficient regard for the lives of others at the time of their defining act, but I can't think of how I would harness that observation to make predictions.

I would guess that this is an attractive topic for psychology students and that forests have been felled to print their observations.

[Pond, James Pond]

I could tell you that murderers share an insufficient regard for the lives of others at the time of their defining act, but I can't think of how I would harness that observation to make predictions.

Let's say that those on here are right and psychiatric drugs over-prescribed, excessively accessible and violent video games as well as hollywood movies all play a part.

Firstly would it not help in identifying certain individuals as being at risk?
Would it not help to have other areas of focus in trying to curtail this violence other than simply banning guns but leaving the underlying pathology untouched?

If you can't see the potential in that....

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by PJP

Let's say that those on here are right and psychiatric drugs over-prescribed, excessively accessible and violent video games as well as hollywood movies all play a part.

Firstly would it not help in identifying certain individuals as being at risk?

That depends. If 10 million lads are on psychotropics, play violent video games and watch violent films, and 7 million of them commit violent crimes, you've really got something.

If only 2,000 of them commit a violent crime, then those characterisitcs don't have a high predictive value.

Would it not help to have other areas of focus in trying to curtail this violence other than simply banning guns but leaving the underlying pathology untouched?

Again, that depends on people drawing the right lessons from the observations. I saw indians killed by the boatload on TV as a lad, and I saw Moe hit Curl on the head with a crowbar dozens of times. I had toy guns.

People in the states younger than me were often prohibited by their mothers from playing with toy guns or viewing violent images. I think they drew some poor lessons.

For serious crime, I imagine a very serious impediment to understanding what causes violent crime is a lack of candor amongst the perpetrators. I'm not suggesting that then topic hasn't been studied extensively (in fact I think it has been), but the results may be either solid and not readily useful, or inconclusive.

I'm no expert on this. I just don't see students passing up interesting theses like this.

[Lohman446]

The same arguments that blame __________ without causational evidence can likely be applied to firearm ownership and possession. EVERY mass shooter has been in possession of a firearm simply by definition.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by adamBomb

Yes but I don't think anyone on these boards would try to compare a rifle to a pistol. We all know the differences and advantages/disadvantages of each. Overall a rifle is a much more powerful, has a higher capacity, and can shoot much farther and accurately. The vegas killer could of never used a pistol to do what he did.

So what?

This thread is about school shootings. I pointed out that only two of the ten most recent school shootings involved so-called "assault weapons," and someone else pointed out that those two events had the highest casualty counts. Both statements are correct, so much depends on what point you're trying to make. The Virginia Tech incident wasn't on my list because I chose to exclude colleges and universities. Not that the lives of college-age students aren't valuable, but because the anti-gun side loves it when "children" are massacred, because they get much more emotional mileage out of such incidents.

The shooter in the Sandy Hook or Parkland incident could as easily have used a handgun or handguns and racked up a similar toll. If they had used handguns, perhaps there would have been more victims who survived their wounds, but we'll never know. Why do some incidents result in dozens of casualties while others result in two or three? Statistics alone cannot possibly answer that. For that we have to delve into specific motives. In the Sandy Hook and Parkland incidents, the motive was to kill as many kids as possible. In some of the other incidents, the motive seems to have been more invididual revenge against one or a few targetted victims. That's still a school shooting, but it's a different dynamic.

My point was simply that banning AR-15s is not the magic talisman that will absolutely guarantee that all our schools will forever be 100% safe and secure against shootings.

And let's never forget that Columbine was intended specifically to exceed the death toll of the Oklahoma City bombing. The primary weapons at Columbine were bombs, not guns. Mercifully, the shooters were lousy bomb makers. Had all their bombs detonated, the death toll would have been in the multiple hundreds.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Pond, James Pond

Why isn't there being carried out some serious, comprehensive research into the drivers behind school shootings?

Because the powers that be really REALLY don't want that question to be answered. It's a can of worms they don't want dug up and opened.

Originally Posted by Pond, James Pond

That they typically involve shooting as multiple unarmed targets, rather than a single person.

Not really correct. Many recent school shootings were targeted rather than random, mass shootings.

Originally Posted by Pond, James Pond

That often the perpetrators commit suicide.

Often they don't.

Isolate the two that involved "assault weapons" and that produced the largest kill counts, and you have Sandy Hook and Parkland. The Sandy Hook shooter killed himself. The Parkland shooter walked out and went to McDonalds.