Uvalde Shooting Spotlights Daniel Defense

[OPC]

According to the CNN article here, Daniel Defense is looking at a lot of questions, especially regarding its advertising practices. Apparently, some of their ads are considered provocative (I have not seen them and the CNN article link is broken).

But what caught my eye was the below excerpt:

The US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform is asking Daniel Defense to provide information such as how much they spend on advertising, their gross revenue from assault-style rifle sales and other items before their June 8 hearing that will "examine the root cause of gun violence and evaluate measures to prevent further loss of life from firearms."

Emphasis mine.

Question to the experts: I understand Congressional committees can ask whatever they want, but are privately held companies required to provide this type of information on request? On its face, this seems irrelevant to the incident, but I suspect this fishing expedition is influenced by the Remington settlement in Connecticut.

[44 AMP]

Congressional committees can do a lot of things, they can ask anyone for anything they consider relevant. If that information is not freely provided, they can subpoena the records. And, the usually do...

what they are looking for, based on what they said is information to support or disprove the currently popular claim that gun makers advertising creates a danger to the public by "targeting" youth (and by extension other "unstable" individuals.

The parents of the Sandy Hook shooting victims sued Remington (who owned Bushmaster the brand of rifle used) and wound up settling out of court. (because Remington went out of business for other reasons, before things went to court, and the lawyers handling Remington's "estate" chose to settle.
Remington did not settle, Remington was gone)

They didn't sue because of a defective product, they didn't sue because Remington/Bushmaster or the gun shop that sold the gun broke any laws. They sued under a CT law that covers advertising and they claimed it was the advertising about the gun that "made" the killer do what he did.

I feel this is pure BS, but under CT law, they get to have their day in court to try and prove their case to a jury. This same tactic is being used against Daniel Defense though may not go as far, because Texas isn't Connecticut...

The people pushing more gun control (meaning more restrictions and even outright bans) are doing a full court press with "fangs out and hair on fire", hammering the mistaken idea that gun ownership (and particularly ownership of certain types of guns) is equal to mass murder and anyone who owns or buys one is a ticking timebomb a mass murderer just waiting to go off.

They are, literally throwing everything against the wall, hoping that it will stick, and based on the past, something will. And what ever it is, it won't be good for us.


Even the 9mm cartridge (our service round and by the numbers, the most commonly used pistol round in the world is being named as "too powerful" for civilian ownership....

None of these people ever seem to even acknowledge the fact that it was a PERSON who broke the highest laws (committing murder) that was the cause. They are focused on the gun, and its marketing, NOT the real cause.

It's wrong, and we've been telling them that for generations now, but the idea has become entrenced in certain political mindsets, and they hold to it with zealous fervor. There are none so blind as those who will not see....

[jdc606]

There is something differently wrong these days. More mass shootings despite more firearm regulations. What's changed?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Even the 9mm cartridge (our service round and by the numbers, the most commonly used pistol round in the world is being named as "too powerful" for civilian ownership....

And, meanwhile, the 5.56x45/.223 cartridge, which is being called a "high-powered military rifle cartridge" by the gun haters, is not allowed for deer hunting in many states because -- wait for it -- it's not considered powerful enough to ensure clean kills.

[44 AMP]

Do remember that the same guy who is now calling the 9mm too powerful said all you needed for home defense was a double barrel 12 ga, and you should just shoot it in the air, then the cops will come...he said that a few years ago, while VP.

Well, maybe where HE lives, that might work....
After all, he's got 24/7 taxpayer funded security....
I don't...

Same guy (also while VP) when asked why the Fed govt didn't prosecute more people for lying on the 4473 form replied with a dismissive hand wave and said "we don't have time for that"....

Leadership is top down, loyalty is bottom up.
I don't think we've got either one these days...

[armoredman]

And in the meantime we wait for the other shoe to drop from SCOTUS.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by armoredman

And in the meantime we wait for the other shoe to drop from SCOTUS.

The NY State Rifle and Pistol Association case? Rumor is that the decision will probably be in our favor. I hope the rumor is correct.

[BarryLee]

"examine the root cause of gun violence and evaluate measures to prevent further loss of life from firearms."

I don't believe the root cause of violence in this country are the tools that criminals and the mentally ill utilize. We all may have our individual causes and solutions, but there is something wrong in society as a whole resulting in these behaviors. The issue is extremely complicated, and solutions possibly controversial. Our leaders want thirty second sound bites and to be able to say they, "did something" regardless of whether it helps or not.

[BobCat45]

44AMP said:

Same guy (also while VP) when asked why the Fed govt didn't prosecute more people for lying on the 4473 form replied with a dismissive hand wave and said "we don't have time for that"....

I recall this and have spent (wasted) a bunch of time trying to find the source of the quote - whether it was a news conference, a political rally, or what... and the date or approximate date.

I did find https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-440 which is subtitled "Few Individuals Denied Firearms Purchases Are Prosecuted and ATF Should Assess Use of Warning Notices in Lieu of Prosecutions" but I failed to find the actual source of the Biden quote.

If anyone knows when or where he said that, and can direct me to the source, I'll be quite grateful... and I'll buy you coffee if you're ever in Houston.

[BarryLee]

This?

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2013...kground-checks

[BobCat45]

Exactly that. I am in your debt.

Now, since what I want it for is to direct people who do not share my views on guns and gun control to documentation of an instance where a high government official said in effect 'we don't have time or resources to prosecute people who attempt straw purchases', if I can dig up a transcript of the interview, that would be perfect.

But you gave me the date and circumstance in which the words were spoken, and that's quite a bit more (understatement) than I'd ever found out on my own.

Thanks!

[Pistoler0]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

And, meanwhile, the 5.56x45/.223 cartridge, which is being called a "high-powered military rifle cartridge" by the gun haters, is not allowed for deer hunting in many states because -- wait for it -- it's not considered powerful enough to ensure clean kills.

100% agree, and it is also called a "weapon of war" unsuitable for civilians to have.

Interestingly in the mean time, the Remington 700 or any other bolt action rifle platform firing .308, 300 Win Mag or what have you is not a destructive weapon of war and is fine for civilians to own, ROFL.

That shows the hypocrisy and ignorance of the anti-gun crowd. If they had their way, they would ban and confiscate ALL firearms and the "weapon of war" moniker is an obvious way to manipulate the non gun-savvy public towards this.

[OPC]

44AMP wrote: Congressional committees can do a lot of things, they can ask anyone for anything they consider relevant. If that information is not freely provided, they can subpoena the records. And, the usually do...

My own online searches seem to indicate that subpoena justification only needs to fall into that vague bucket of "valid legislative purpose" for the purpose of "intelligent legislative action" and are generally exempted from any "judicial interference". So is there any recourse for Daniel Defense or other private business entities?

[imp]

I always wondered what would happen if a company or even an individual pulled a page from Hillary Clinton's playbook. Respond to ever question with some variation of " I don't remember", and bring the wrong documents, stonewall, then burst out in righteous indignation and say "at this point, what difference does it make."

From my own perspective, it would be worth a charge of contempt of congress to tell them exactly how much contempt I have for them.

[Double Naught Spy]

100% agree, and it is also called a "weapon of war" unsuitable for civilians to have.

Interestingly in the mean time, the Remington 700 or any other bolt action rifle platform firing .308, 300 Win Mag or what have you is not a destructive weapon of war and is fine for civilians to own, ROFL.

That shows the hypocrisy and ignorance of the anti-gun crowd. If they had their way, they would ban and confiscate ALL firearms and the "weapon of war" moniker is an obvious way to manipulate the non gun-savvy public towards this.

No hypocrisy or ignorance on the part of the anti-gun crowd. They are playing this effectively from their perspective and it scares the heck out of pro gun folks as a result. It isn't an all or nothing game, but one of increments. They got rid of bump stocks with Trump's full endorsement and Republican votes. That came on the heels of a mass shooting. Now if they can get AR15s banned on the heels of a mass shooting, so much the better. Once that happens, they will come after the Rem 700s, etc.

Also don't forget that there are a lot of gun owners who don't own AR15s who are willing to let them go in order to keep their other guns, just like many were willing to let bump stocks go. It is hard to win a war of attrition when you sacrifice your own side.

No hypocrisy or ignorance. They are working to have it their way, one step at a time. They are patient and will use whatever means they can to make their point.

[44 AMP]

glad someone was able to provide a link to an interview where he said "we don't have time or resources for that".

What I was referring to was a video clip, probably from about the same time frame, where a couple of reporters "caught" him in a hallway, and asked him why so few prosecutions...essentially the same question as the linked interview.

His answer was a dismissive hand wave and saying "we don't have time for that". I can't give you date or any link, but I DID see him say it myself, its NOT hearsay...

... it is also called a "weapon of war" unsuitable for civilians to have.

Whenever I see/hear someone use that phrase "weapon of war" and claim civilians should not have them, I laugh to myself, and sometimes even laugh in their face. And I tell them to go read Tench Coxe...

Particularly the quote about how "the sword, and every other terrible weapon of war is the birthright of the American citizen"...

of course, most of those folks will have to research who Tench Coxe was...

Which changes nothing about how right that statement was, AND STILL IS!

I admit, I felt browbeaten and somewhat guilty for a long time, I fell for their spiel, going back to the origin of (modern) school mass shooting, which is Stockton Ca in 86, NOT Columbine years later...

But, no more. I now refuse to feel guilty about owning "weapons of war" and I am NOT guilty OR responsible for the CRIMINAL acts of others, just because they happen to use a certain gun or tool that I own. I didn't do it, and they didn't use MY gun to do it why do you want to punish ME??

Because it makes YOU feel better? Hypocrites seems like too mild a word.

How about banning Congress for failing to pass a law that says you can't shoot people for fun or profit??...
Oh,,,wait..there is such a thing?? really?? and for a long time too??? huh,,,you never hear the gun banners mention THAT!
(yes the sarcasm is intentional)

[gbclarkson]

A Republican congresswoman from Texas (I forget her name now) while in a verbal sparring session with CNN's Alisyn Camerota profiled a proposal that would allow access to juvenile criminal records when individuals 18-21 attempt to purchase a firearm (something like this... I also forget the details). Many recent mass shooters were young and most had troubled histories both in school and with law enforcement. These histories, by statute, are sealed. A law such as this will not full stop mass shootings, of course; but, it may prevent a few.

[Webleymkv]

I will strive to keep this as apolitical and non-conspiratorial as possible, but given the increasingly shrill rhetoric and tactics being used by those who wish to deprive us of our rights, that's becoming increasingly difficult to do. I think perhaps it's time to address the inconsistencies and failures that these shootings are increasingly bringing to light.

It seems to be an emerging pattern in mass shooters that they often, if not usually, have done things prior to the mass shooting that would be grounds for arrest and prosecution thus barring them from purchasing or owning a gun to begin with. While the usual crowd will always bandy about "assault weapons bans" and "magazine restrictions" the proposals which seem to gain the most traction are "universal background checks" and "red flag laws".

The problem with these proposals, however, is that in many, if not most, of these cases they would have done absolutely nothing to stop the shooter from arming himself. Most of the recent mass shooters bought their guns legally through FFL's and thus passed a background check, thus expanding background checks would have no impact whatsoever on them. Also, when they're already committed acts which are clearly criminal and either their charges are reduced/dropped or the acts are ignored all together, then what hope does some vague "red flag law" have of stopping them from obtaining guns? If we're not willing to arrest, prosecute/adjudicate and imprison/institutionalize people who have clearly committed criminal acts and/or demonstrated themselves a danger to themselves or others then what makes us think that depriving the whole of the populace of due process would help?

I have said for many years that I believe many, if not most, mass shooters are displaying extreme attention-seeking behavior. Having spent many years in healthcare myself and having many friends and family members also in healthcare professions including Physicians, Nurses, Paramedics, and various others, I can assure you that, if you've never seen it, you would be astounded at the lengths some people are willing to go in pursuit of attention. I can also tell you, from both first and secondhand experience, that giving an attention-seeker the attention they desire only further encourages their behaviors. Because of this, it has long been my belief that the weeks-long, wall-to-wall media coverage of such events serves to inspire future would-be mass shooters particularly when the shooter's name and face are plastered all over the television.

I have noticed some effort within the media to curb this by refusing to broadcast the shooters' names and pictures, but these efforts seem to be inconsistent at best. It seems (and this is where it's difficult to be apolitical) that the amount and type of attention that mass shootings receive is dependent largely upon the ethnicity and political leanings of the shooter. It seems to me that, if those in the media truly wanted to reduce mass shootings and believed that their coverage of the shooter had an influence, that they would refuse to give a name and face to white and/or right-leaning shooters just as much as they would to minority and/or left-leaning shooters. This, however, does not seem to be the case.

Now, there is no panacea to cure mass shootings, gun violence, or any other type of violent crime and I think that most reasonable people understand that. Certainly I think mental-health is a large component, in fact I see mass-shootings as a symptom of a larger mental-health crisis. That being said, and this is where I'm afraid I must be a bit conspiratorial, I think it's time to take a hard look at the inconsistencies and failures I outlined above. The patterns that I articulated above are, in my opinion, too numerous and too frequent to be simply dismissed as incompetence, laziness, or "slipping through the cracks."

I really do not want to believe that people in positions of authority are purposely allowing potential mass-shooters to "slip through the cracks" but my level of discomfort with the thought does not preclude me from saying that the possibility should be investigated. If we took nothing from the "Fast and Furious" scandal it is that people in positions of authority are not necessarily above allowing terrible things to happen in order to further a political agenda. If it could happen once, why should we assume it could not happen again.

Likewise, perhaps it's time to take a long, hard look at the media's culpability in these tragedies. The fact that they cover mass shootings in such an inconsistent manner leads me to the conclusion that the realize to some degree that they have an impact on these events. When it has become acceptable, and in some circles celebrated, to smear and slander people based on unsubstantiated accusations and innuendo and to ruin the careers and businesses of individuals and companies through boycott and frivolous lawsuits based on their political stances, then why should we not hold the media to the same standard? I'd like nothing better than to see a pro-gun politician turn the tables on one of these smug media-types by bringing up exactly the issues I describe.

I am extremely angry about not only the Uvalde shooting, but all mass shootings. First and foremost, I'm angry that innocent people are dead for no good reason. But I'm also angry that, next to the shooter, the people who are, in my opinion, most culpable in causing these tragedies are the very ones lecturing me and trying to take away my God-given rights. I'm sick and tired of explaining myself and having to defend my rights because of an event that I had no part in, did not wish to happen, and want to prevent just as much as anyone else. I think that one of the mistakes that the 2nd Amendment community has made is that we've allowed ourselves to be on the defensive for too long, it's time to take the political offensive and start calling out the hypocrites and enablers in politics and the media. The anti-2A crowd keeps saying that we need to have "hard conversations" and "put everything on the table" and I think it's high time we do just that, though to paraphrase Indigo Montoya "I do not think that means what they think it means."

I think it's high-time we stop trying to invent euphemisms like "modern sporting rifle" and start making the argument that it's entirely appropriate for law-abiding citizens to have and use "weapons of war" because "weapons of war" are the most effective tools with which to defend our lives, property, and freedom. The single most destructive event in recorded human history was WWII and it was fought primarily with bolt-action rifles because those were the most effective "weapons of war" available to the soldiers of the day. The very same attributes that make a "weapon of war" or "assault weapon" particularly useful to a soldier to defend his country also make it useful to a free citizen defending his life and liberty. I think it's time to stop quibbling and trying to find "common ground" about "background checks" and "red flag laws" because if we dealt with crime and mental illness appropriately they would be unnecessary. Trying to portray ourselves as "sportsmen" or "hobbyists" is a losing strategy and it's high time we put it in on the ash heap of history where it belongs. If this post is too political, conspiratorial, or too much of a rant and the mods feel the need to remove it, I will understand, but I feel it's pertinent and something that needed to be said.

[44 AMP]

There are a lot of factors, many overlapping, at work here, and only one of them is "easy access" to the gun.

I often read (at least part) of the various opinion pieces on preventing mass shooting (school or otherwise) mostly to see if they include any idea that might be both rational (rare) and reasonable (almost never).

One I saw today looked at 22 mass shootings and the author hammered on how in all but 3 of them the shooter bought the gun(s) legally. He also included a couple where the shooter used guns bought legally by a parent.

One of those was Sandy Hook, and he was correct, the shooter's mother did buy the guns, legally. What the author failed to mention AT ALL, was the shooter KILLED his mother, and took the guns, technically "stealing" them after murdering her....

The other and, biggest point which the author left out (and it could only have been intentional) was that when all those guns were purchased LEGALLY, it was because the buyer was NOT a criminal. And in the cited cases, only one was technically a prohibited person.

What's their focus on? how easy the guns are to get...ignoring a truckload of facts, one of them being that we essentially didn't have mass shootings when there were NO gun control laws.

The St Valentines Day Massacre, is about the only one you'll find in the history books, and it was a gangland slaying 7 killed and there were no laws restricting machine guns at the time. Actual machine guns, NOT "semiautomatic assault rifles"....

so, another part of the focus is on the background of the shooters, and there is another problem there. Not just juvenile records being sealed, but one of ..lets say, "scale".

They make points on how some of the killers had long histories of "disturbing" behavior, or making threats, and so on. About how many times the police got called, etc...

and while true, think about how the authorities responded. Did they lock up the people who later became mass killers? Did they do anything that legally prohibited them from later buying guns? Pretty much, no. They didn't. Why not???

There are a couple of reasons, the most usual is that the authorities did not deem such behavior to meet the standards for criminal action. The threats were not considered credible. Or sometimes, they got a pass simply because they were juveniles, and authorities were reluctant to "screw up their futures" over something they were not convinced was going to be a problem.
(and that, IS a problem both ways)

Right now, some are ranting about how the Uvalde killer made threats and no one heeded the "warning". Barely mentioning or leaving out the fact that when the kid made the threats he was 14.

Do we permanently change a 14 year old's future, legally closing off a host of options in life because he talks smack?? makes threats that aren't deemed credible? And if he does commit crimes YEARS LATER, is it reasonable to find fault with the people and decisions they made years earlier when there was no credible threat (in their opinion)?

Some folks want it both ways. They don't want potentially dangerous children to be prosecuted, or even put on "a list" because that could harm their futures, but at the same time, they want "potentially dangerous" children red flagged, and on lists to prevent them from buying a gun after they reach legal adulthood.

And in both cases, we're talking about kids saying things that distrubed some people, NOT things that violated existing laws.

This double standard is yet another one of the problems.

[chadio]

... I can also tell you, from both first and secondhand experience, that giving an attention-seeker the attention they desire only further encourages their behaviors. Because of this, it has long been my belief that the weeks-long, wall-to-wall media coverage of such events serves to inspire future would-be mass shooters particularly when the shooter's name and face are plastered all over the television....

This has been my sentiment all - along. News media is encouraging them with recognition.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by 44 AMP
What's their focus on? how easy the guns are to get...ignoring a truckload of facts, one of them being that we essentially didn't have mass shootings when there were NO gun control laws.

The St Valentines Day Massacre, is about the only one you'll find in the history books, and it was a gangland slaying 7 killed and there were no laws restricting machine guns at the time. Actual machine guns, NOT "semiautomatic assault rifles"....

That is a very valid point and brings to mind another, if not directly related, at least adjacent point: what the definition of a mass shooting is and how it's defined. If you said "mass shooting" to the average person what would spring immediately to mind is something along the lines of Uvalde, Parkland, Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, or Columbine: a crazed gunman indiscriminately shooting large numbers of innocent people. However, by definition, a mass shooting is any incident in which four or more people are shot. The vast majority of mass shootings, which are included in the often bandied about statistics of "x number of mass shootings in y period of time" are shootings of relatively small groups of people by someone they were related to, closely acquainted with, or had dealings with. A gang-related shooting in which half a dozen drug traffickers are shot is technically a mass shooting, but that's not the perception that most people have. By definition, mass shootings are not all that uncommon in inner cities and other high-crime areas, but they don't have the media "shock value" for Suzie Q Soccer-Mom because, unless you're related, acquainted, or have dealings with violent criminals, you're at relatively low risk of being a victim of this sort of mass shooting. While the loss of life from these more common shootings is certainly a serious problem, it doesn't resonate like the "crazed gunman" type because it doesn't directly affect the life of the average middle-class suburban voter (or at least they don't perceive it to).

so, another part of the focus is on the background of the shooters, and there is another problem there. Not just juvenile records being sealed, but one of ..lets say, "scale".

They make points on how some of the killers had long histories of "disturbing" behavior, or making threats, and so on. About how many times the police got called, etc...

and while true, think about how the authorities responded. Did they lock up the people who later became mass killers? Did they do anything that legally prohibited them from later buying guns? Pretty much, no. They didn't. Why not???

There are a couple of reasons, the most usual is that the authorities did not deem such behavior to meet the standards for criminal action. The threats were not considered credible. Or sometimes, they got a pass simply because they were juveniles, and authorities were reluctant to "screw up their futures" over something they were not convinced was going to be a problem.
(and that, IS a problem both ways)

Right now, some are ranting about how the Uvalde killer made threats and no one heeded the "warning". Barely mentioning or leaving out the fact that when the kid made the threats he was 14.

Do we permanently change a 14 year old's future, legally closing off a host of options in life because he talks smack?? makes threats that aren't deemed credible? And if he does commit crimes YEARS LATER, is it reasonable to find fault with the people and decisions they made years earlier when there was no credible threat (in their opinion)?

Again, we have the issue of inconsistency on the part of how "disturbing behavior" by juveniles is handled. On the one hand, you have a reluctance to do anything because "he's only 14" and "I don't want to screw up his life" but on the other hand we've all heard stories of gross over-reactions to relatively minor things due to "zero-tolerance" policies. It is at the very least eyebrow raising that a 14-year-old making threats of violence is swept under the rug when we live in a day and age where kindergarteners have the police called on them for pointing a finder and saying "bang, bang" or chewing a pop-tart into the vague shape of a pistol. Perhaps, rather than clutching pearls over a five-year-old's breakfast, we should focus on actual threats of violence by teenagers. There are, after all, options somewhere between ignoring disturbing behavior and ruining a juvenile's life. Perhaps, if the threats of the 14 year old had been taken seriously and he'd received some mental health treatment at 14, he might have been able to work through whatever mental/emotional issues he had and wouldn't have wanted to shoot up an Elementary school when he was 18. Mental health, however, is a far more complex and nuanced issue than gun control and it doesn't fit on bumper stickers, increase television ratings, or drive a political agenda nearly as well.

Some folks want it both ways. They don't want potentially dangerous children to be prosecuted, or even put on "a list" because that could harm their futures, but at the same time, they want "potentially dangerous" children red flagged, and on lists to prevent them from buying a gun after they reach legal adulthood.

And in both cases, we're talking about kids saying things that disturbed some people, NOT things that violated existing laws.

This double standard is yet another one of the problems.

I agree and I think a lot of this has to do with a very black-and-white mentality about mental health. On the one hand, you have the old way of thinking in which anyone with a mental illness should be locked away and institutionalized. This school of thought stigmatizes mental health care and discourages people from seeking the help that they need. On the other hand, you have a school of thought that is so concerned about stigmatizing mental health issues that they are reluctant to even acknowledge a problem when it exists. This is equally as dangerous because it quickly devolves into denial that there is even a problem, dangerous or not, in the first place. Yes, the majority of people with mental/emotional health issues are pretty much harmless, but even harmless mental illnesses can fester into dangerous ones if left untreated. If we want to get to the root of mass shootings, perhaps acknowledging and addressing the fact that mental/emotional disorders of all types, including suicide and self-harm are increasing. The issue, as I see it, isn't "mass shootings" or "gun violence" but rather mass murder and violence of any sort. I think it would be much more productive to examine why an 18-year-old wants to kill a bunch of small children than wringing our hands about the manner in which he chose to do it.

[Tom Servo]

There are a lot of factors, many overlapping, at work here, and only one of them is "easy access" to the gun.

Bear in mind, per-capita gun ownership in Canada is almost as high as the US. Yet Canada has had only two school shootings in the last five decades. Mass shootings are rare. The idea that the availability of guns is the problem is just broken.

This is a "whole of society" problem, and it's going to take a "whole of society" approach to fix it. Problem is, we don't like that. We're conditioned to respond to pithy slogans and emotional appeals.

It's just easier to yell "ban the guns" than it is to suggest nuanced, considered solutions. And as long as we let them get away with that, we'll never make headway on the problem.

[Double Naught Spy]

Bear in mind, per-capita gun ownership in Canada is almost as high as the US.

I don't know validity of Wiki numbers, but they show us at nearly 4x the number of guns per capita than Canada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estima...ita_by_country

It seems to be an oft repeated set of numbers.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...hip-by-country
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

This listing has it closer to 3x...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/small-...guns-1.3392204

[44 AMP]

Some points for consideration and comments...

Right now, everyone's "blood is up" and because they feel sure of enough support while people are upset, the gun banners are pushing hard, but, they are also taking a huge risk.

REMEMBER the last time assault weapons were banned? The 1994 AWB law was passed the summer before mid term elections. They got their law, and that November the Democrats lost control of Congress for the first time in 40 years. They may have the "political momentum" (as they see it) TODAY, and so will very likely pass SOMETHING. They did before. I wonder what the cost to their political power will be, this time....

Next point, media and mass shootings, the media definition of a mass shooting has been revised multiple times, and today the standard is 4 or more people shot. Not killed, 4 injured when shots are fired now qualifies as enough for them to call it a mass shooting.
And, thanks to modern technology, every mass shooting is now national/international news repeated 24/7 only fading from the news when a new fresher murder spree happens, or if the killer is someone who does not further the anti-gun people's pet profiles.

last point (for now ) is "mental illness".

What is mental illness?? Its a hugely vague blanket that covers a huge range of things, and gets defined and redefined by the people writing medical texts. I'm old enough to remember when homosexuality was listed in the standard medical texts as a mental illness. That's unthinkable today...

Most people automatically equate mental illness with irrational thoughts and actions and reduced capacity to function in society. And many mentall ill people do fit that definition. But, people also apply the tag "mentally ill" to people who are nothing more than not meeting someone's preconceived notions of "normal" behavior.

OF course, mass killers MUST be mentally ill, what they do proves it! Doesn't it? But are they? or are they people who do not have any empathy or respect for the rights and lives of other people? is that a mental illness? (it is if you define it as such) or is something else that isn't the usual thing we think of when you say "mentally ill"?

The killers are capable of planning and carrying out complex tasks to commit mass murder. and literally, all we can ever know about why they do it comes from what, if anything they tell us.

The problem with that is, people lie.

Reportedly, one of the Columbine killers had a web site full of "peace, love, bortherhood, and why can't we all just get along". And then he went out and committed mass murder.

There was a case in CA a while back, some guy said/did some things that got him reported to the police, who sent some people to check on him. They found him calm, rational, and sane, determined he was not a threat and left.
The next day that guy stabbed some people, shot some people and ran over some with his car. His given reason, he was upset because he couldn't get a girlfriend....

My point here is, that the mind of man is "as trackless as a bog at midnight", and NO ONE but the individual knows what they are thinking or going to do, no matter what they say.

Its all dependent on what the evaluator's opinion is, based not on fact, but on what he sees and hears. The Virgina Tech killer was seeing mental health professionals, and while they classed him as distrubed and in need of help, they didn't rate him as a threat. 32 dead, 17 wounded because he was "not a credible threat" in someone's opinion...

Just one example among many ..too many...

[Tom Servo]

I don't know validity of Wiki numbers, but they show us at nearly 4x the number of guns per capita than Canada.

Busted. I was wrong about the Canada numbers.