Orlando mass shooting

[revmic]

The plain reality is that he would have not have been able to inflict such carnage if he did not have that weapon. I am amazed that US citizens fail to grasp such simple facts.


BTW, I am also curious: why do people need an assault rifle? I can understand a collector or dealer would want to be able to own one but why an ordinary person?

I think Timothy McVeigh and some guys from Saudi Arabia would beg to differ on how much carnage can be done without firearms. Don't underestimate motivated sociopaths.

An ordinary person doesn't need an assault rifle but a car buff doesn't need cars either. They just genuinely appreciate their design and performance, especially ex-military personnel. Guns in the US are tied in with our identity more than most countries; the idea of the armed citizen is in our cultural DNA. And overwhelmingly, their owners care for them responsibly and don't hurt a soul.

[Peter B]

The plain reality is that he would have not have been able to inflict such carnage if he did not have that weapon. I am amazed that US citizens fail to grasp such simple facts.


BTW, I am also curious: why do people need an assault rifle? I can understand a collector or dealer would want to be able to own one but why an ordinary person?

I think Timothy McVeigh and some guys from Saudi Arabia would beg to differ on how much carnage can be done without firearms. Don't underestimate motivated sociopaths.

An ordinary person doesn't need an assault rifle but a car buff doesn't need cars either. They just genuinely appreciate their design and performance, especially ex-military personnel. Guns in the US are tied in with our identity more than most countries; the idea of the armed citizen is in our cultural DNA. And overwhelmingly, their owners care for them responsibly and don't hurt a soul.

Without wishing to put words into Obviousman's mouth, while it's true a motivated sociopath can do a lot of damage without guns, it's just a darn sight easier to cause mayhem with a gun. Specifically, you need less than an hour and, what, a couple of thousand dollars to go to your local gun shop, purchase a few firearms and some ammunition, then go out and kill dozens of people. By contrast, the 9/11 attacks took years of planning and must have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in air fares, flying lessons, hotel bills and so on.

The danger with firearms is the damage which can be caused by someone who's just Having A Bad Day.

Back in the late 1980s Australia had a couple of massed killings caused by people with guns, with six to eight people killed. These were obviously leading news stories of the day (given the population difference between Australia and the USA I'll let you calculate what the equivalent casualties would be). But I also very vividly remember reading a story at the time, on about page 5 of the newspaper, only a few centimetres long, of a man who went on a rampage in a shopping centre with a knife: something like seven people were wounded. And I remembered thinking, at least he didn't have a gun, otherwise it would have been another mass killing. Very simply, a gun allows you to kill people tens of metres away with just the twitch of your index finger, even if they're running away; with a knife you need to be right next to someone, and you need to use your whole arm: physically and psychologically it's a lot easier to kill people with a gun than with a knife.

[bknight]

And by "you people," I mean "the mentally healthy," who kill the mentally ill at a rate considerably higher than the one at which mentally ill people kill the mentally healthy.

What metric do you base this statement on?

Flat numbers.  The number of mentally ill people killed by mentally healthy in a year in the US is higher, by a fair amount, than the number of mentally healthy people killed by mentally ill people.  No matter whose statistics you're using.  This isn't separating out personality disorders, which I'm not doing.  The fact is, whether you're looking at people with bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, or narcissistic personality disorder, or anything else you care to mention, we are more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators, and the sicker we are, the more likely we are to be victims.  According to "Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American Firearms," a study by Jonathan M. Metzl, MD, PhD corresponding author and Kenneth T. MacLeish, PhD, published in The American Journal of Public Health, "Databases that track gun homicides, such as the National Center for Health Statistics, similarly show that fewer than 5% of the 120 000 gun-related killings in the United States between 2001 and 2010 were perpetrated by people diagnosed with mental illness."  Further, "Their extensive surveys of police incident reports demonstrate that, far from posing threats to others, people diagnosed with schizophrenia have victimization rates 65% to 130% higher than those of the general public."

I have withheld any statements in an effort to abstain from an argument concerning statistics, however.  In the 90's I was a special education teacher and by far the number of students with Emotional Disturbances was far larger than any other disability.  Now it may have been a particular school or population but these individuals are far more inclined to commit violent crimes than any other disability group.  So I would argue that people with ED are far more inclined to commit these violent crimes and as a percentage would be larger for that particular populations.
The other larger group of Learning Disabilities, is another group that MAY be inclined to commit crimes as they have a tendency to have difficulty conforming to "normal" learned personal behaviors.  I'm not indicating that they are aggressive in there behaviors, but those students have difficulty in self esteem, when associating with the "general" population.  With this lack of self esteem and believing out of normal behaviors MAY strike out with violent behaviors, including capital murders.

As a side note to the comment from your citation concerning schizophrenia.  The population is so small that any crime committed will be large in percentages.

From Google "Worldwide about 1 percent of the population is diagnosed with schizophrenia, and approximately 1.2% of Americans (3.2 million) have the disorder. About 1.5 million people will be diagnosed with schizophrenia this year around the world"

[gillianren]

So . . . you would argue, based on your experience with one population that even you admit might not be universal?

[Ranb]

That genie isn't going back in the bottle in the States, though. I read somewhere that there are more firearms than humans here. Limiting magazine capacity always  made sense to me, people who think they need 50 rounds available before reloading are clearly preparing for a firefight, and I would have to question exactly what scenario they had in mind.

I collect and shoot various firearms.  I also have what are referred to as high capacity magazines.  I'm not preparing for a gun fight; you have no rational reason to think I'm doing so.  If you do, then please tell me why I am.

High powered weapons can be a real power symbol/totem. Always kind of wondered if getting one can take someone who is just mean and, just because of the extra power, edge him over the line to full-on homicidal? Chicken or egg problem

Just guns to me.

Ranb

[Ranb]

I believe that sporting shooters can have weapons - providing that they are kept at an approved range.

No thanks.  I also do my own gunsmithing for the most part, and I prefer to do so at home.

Could he have obtained a weapon and killed people under the restriction I propose? Perhaps... but there would have been a greater chance to filter him out and prevent a weapon getting into his hands.

He had a bkgd check; what else do you want?

BTW, I am also curious: why do people need an assault rifle? I can understand a collector or dealer would want to be able to own one but why an ordinary person?

I compete with mine.

Ranb

[LunarOrbit]

I believe the vast majority of gun owners are responsible, and if there was some way to guaranty that only responsible people could own guns I probably wouldn't have a problem with them. But we know that irresponsible people can too easily get their hands on them, and I don't think there is a way to prevent that because it's not like they walk around with a giant sign that points to them saying "I'm not responsible enough to own a gun".

Background checks will only help so much. Someone who is planning their first crime won't have a criminal record. Not all mental illnesses have been diagnosed, let alone reported to anyone. And the people who have become radicalized are often smart enough to avoid catching the attention of the government.

And what good is a background check if it isn't going to prevent people who are on the anti-terrorism "do not fly" list from owning a large arsenal of weapons?

So what would you recommend, Ranb? How do we prevent mass shootings without restricting access to these weapons? How do we know who will commit those crimes before they do it?

I think we need to draw the line somewhere. At the very least there should be a limit to how much ammunition a magazine can hold, but I'd like to go even further. Require a special license for owning certain guns, and prohibit access to others completely. Someone like yourself who competes with a particular rifle would have a license to do so because you have proven you're responsible.

Believe me, I totally understand why good people don't want to be punished for the crimes of a few bad apples, but I think it's clear that things have gotten out of hand. The US doesn't have more mentally ill people than other countries, but it has a vastly higher rate of mass shootings. The ease of access to assault rifles has got to have something to do with it.

We ban dangerous items all the time. You can't get a Kinder Egg (a hollow chocolate egg containing a small toy) in the United States because they are a potential choking hazard. We can't get lawn darts any more because 6 people were killed over the course of 10 years in the 1980s. But for some reason guns that can kill 50 people in a matter of seconds can be owned by pretty much anyone. How does that make sense?

[revmic]

I collect and shoot various firearms.  I also have what are referred to as high capacity magazines.  I'm not preparing for a gun fight; you have no rational reason to think I'm doing so.  If you do, then please tell me why I am.

Ok, fair point and I concede it. How about this: Is there a reason that you would need mag capacity beyond, say, 5 rounds before reloading? Maybe just for specialized competition? Would it be reasonable to have specialized licensing for those firearms so that you could enjoy them responsibly while keeping them away from guys like the Orlando shooter? In light of his and other victims, is there any rational argument against such a minor measure?

High powered weapons can be a real power symbol/totem. Always kind of wondered if getting one can take someone who is just mean and, just because of the extra power, edge him over the line to full-on homicidal? Chicken or egg problem

Just guns to me.

Different subjects. I'm wondering if guys who fetishize high-powered weapons  (I'll introduce you to boatloads if you have not met any) might get empowered to take their hate to the next level by buying one, not suggesting all owners are like that. Just guns to me too, but for the Orlando shooter it was an efficient tool for a job, and slowing those types down is the issue.

He had a bkgd check; what else do you want?

Uhhh...maybe for him to not have the option of picking up a modified military weapon on his freaking lunch break with nothing but a driver's license? You sound like the classic perfectly responsible owner, do you really think some yahoo off the street should be able to easily get his hands on hardware like that? After all, what could go wrong?

I live in a state where even shotguns have to be plugged to hold no more than three shells. I found it reasonable and no horrific burden. What reason could some knucklehead off the street have to reasonably need that kind of capacity, short of a firefight?

[revmic]

Without wishing to put words into Obviousman's mouth, while it's true a motivated sociopath can do a lot of damage without guns, it's just a darn sight easier to cause mayhem with a gun...(snipped for brevity)

I agree with your observations and have also argued in favor of limiting magazine capacity etc in this very thread. Obviousman said:

The plain reality is that he would have not have been able to inflict such carnage if he did not have that weapon. I am amazed that US citizens fail to grasp such simple facts.

That is demonstrably not a fact, the Orlando shooter could have inflicted carnage in an incalculable number of ways. He chose the easiest, but McVeigh showed pretty clearly that there are other ways to wreak havoc. Us dumb ol' US citizens can in fact grasp simple facts, but the gun issue is fairly complex (*nationalistic pride engaged*)

[revmic]

We ban dangerous items all the time. You can't get a Kinder Egg (a hollow chocolate egg containing a small toy) in the United States because they are a potential choking hazard. We can't get lawn darts any more because 6 people were killed over the course of 10 years in the 1980s. But for some reason guns that can kill 50 people in a matter of seconds can be owned by pretty much anyone. How does that make sense?

Excellent points in a well-written post. Regarding lawn darts and Kinder eggs, though, these were marketed for use by kids. Firearms aren't, and to own one you have to meet your state and federal laws. In my state, even to buy a BB gun you have to apply for a 'long gun card', register with your towns police department, be fingerprinted etc in addition to the felon/background check requirements.

[Obviousman]

I think we need to draw the line somewhere. At the very least there should be a limit to how much ammunition a magazine can hold, but I'd like to go even further. Require a special license for owning certain guns, and prohibit access to others completely. Someone like yourself who competes with a particular rifle would have a license to do so because you have proven you're responsible.

Believe me, I totally understand why good people don't want to be punished for the crimes of a few bad apples, but I think it's clear that things have gotten out of hand. The US doesn't have more mentally ill people than other countries, but it has a vastly higher rate of mass shootings. The ease of access to assault rifles has got to have something to do with it.

We ban dangerous items all the time. You can't get a Kinder Egg (a hollow chocolate egg containing a small toy) in the United States because they are a potential choking hazard. We can't get lawn darts any more because 6 people were killed over the course of 10 years in the 1980s. But for some reason guns that can kill 50 people in a matter of seconds can be owned by pretty much anyone. How does that make sense?

Well said.

[Obviousman]

The plain reality is that he would have not have been able to inflict such carnage if he did not have that weapon. I am amazed that US citizens fail to grasp such simple facts.

That is demonstrably not a fact, the Orlando shooter could have inflicted carnage in an incalculable number of ways. He chose the easiest, but McVeigh showed pretty clearly that there are other ways to wreak havoc. Us dumb ol' US citizens can in fact grasp simple facts, but the gun issue is fairly complex (*nationalistic pride engaged*)

Okay, I concede there are many ways to cause carnage... but the use of firearms in the US to wreak havoc must indicate something.

[Al Johnston]

I collect and shoot various firearms.  I also have what are referred to as high capacity magazines.  I'm not preparing for a gun fight; you have no rational reason to think I'm doing so.  If you do, then please tell me why I am.

In terms of possessing the necessary equipment, you are nevertheless prepared

[bknight]

So . . . you would argue, based on your experience with one population that even you admit might not be universal?

All I was trying to suggest, communication is my Achilles heal, That those ED individuals are far more likely to commit violent crimes than any other group when considering disabled individuals or those not diagnosed with disabilities. 

[gillianren]

That is demonstrably not a fact, the Orlando shooter could have inflicted carnage in an incalculable number of ways. He chose the easiest, but McVeigh showed pretty clearly that there are other ways to wreak havoc. Us dumb ol' US citizens can in fact grasp simple facts, but the gun issue is fairly complex (*nationalistic pride engaged*)

Here's the thing, though.  After Oklahoma City, sales of large amounts of fertilizer were tracked.  One company even started developing a fertilizer that couldn't be turned into a bomb.  Because we as a nation recognized that, hey, that was a dangerous thing that we could maybe do something to mitigate even though what he used was not intended as a killing tool.  But when it comes to actual tools designed to kill, any step to mitigate the danger is just plain wrong, somehow.

So . . . you would argue, based on your experience with one population that even you admit might not be universal?

All I was trying to suggest, communication is my Achilles heal, That those ED individuals are far more likely to commit violent crimes than any other group when considering disabled individuals or those not diagnosed with disabilities.

Oh, I know exactly what you were trying to suggest.  I'm saying you don't have a valid statistical sample to do so.