CDZ The Dallas Shooter

[FA_Q2]

Used a gun similar to those used in recent mass shootings.

He killed FIVE police officers.

How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

Reagan's rolling in his grave.

NEW YORK (WABC) -- Details are emerging about the weapon used to carry out the deadly ambush on police officers in Dallas, and while not confirmed, it is believed that the sniper used what is increasingly the weapon of choice in mass shootings.

"We will find that it was a military-style assault weapon with a large capacity magazine on it," Citizens Crime Commission president Richard Aborn said. "And this happens over and over and over again."

Last month, a military-style rifle was used by the gunman who killed 49 people at an Orlando nightclub. And last December, a husband and wife terrorist team killed 14 using a similar semi-automatic rifle. Adam Lanza used a military-type rifle in 2012 to kill 26 students and teachers at a school in Newtown Connecticut, and a similar AR-15-type military rifle was used to kill 12 people earlier that year in a Colorado movie theater.

"The AR-15 Assault weapon is the preferred weapon of these mass killers," former NYPD sergeant and FBI special agent Manuel Gomez said.

Gomez says that until Congress reinstates the ban on these military-style weapons, they will continue to be used in mass shootings because of their killing efficiency.

"You can shoot 50, 60, up to 100 rounds in one minute," he said. "And each round designed to enter the body and tear that piece that it entered apart."

A report by New York's Citizen Crime Commission concluded that after Congress lifted the ban on these military-style rifles in 2004, the number of people killed by semi-automatic, high-capacity guns tripled. Aborn said the Dallas police killings adds to their death toll.

If the shooter had used an assault rifle Reagan and Brady would have died almost instantly.

Though I understand why you said that, the more likely reality is that were Hinkley to have used a rifle of pretty much any sort and at the same range in which he used his handgun, he probably wouldn't have had an opportunity to shoot Reagan or Brady. After all, he began shooting from just 10 feet away from the President. I think the Secret Service would have noticed him carrying a rifle long before he managed to fire it and either confiscated it or removed Hinkley from the scene.

Refrain, if you would, from posting the obvious. NO KIDDING.

The comment was about the rounds used, I'm not sure why that wouldn't be obvious but I guess not everyone knows the difference between a pistol round and what type ammo is used in an assault weapon. Hinkley used a very cheap $50 .22 pistol. The rounds were explosive rounds but the one that hit Reagan didn't explode. They think the one that hit Brady in the head did explode, but it was a .22 so even a direct hit in the head didn't kill him.

Velocity of a .22 long rifle about 1,200ft/sec
Velocity of a .223 round from an AR-15 about 3,200ft/sec

Nearly three times the velocity. Damage done to tissue corresponds to the energy contained in the projectile when it enters tissue. Brady's head would have likely exploded and Reagan wouldn't have made it to the hospital.

No one hit by Hinkley died from ten feet away because the gun he used fired the cartridge on the left. A .22 long rifle or similar, even an explosive round didn't kill Brady. The shooter in Dallas used a weapon that fired something similar to the cartridge on the right. From moderate distance on moving targets and he killed 5 people very rapidly.

This is the problem with assault rifles, it isn't the rifle, it is the ammo it uses. Pass a law so that all assault rifles can only physically use the cartridge on the left and there is no need to ban these weapons. They then become the same as an 1880's .22 rifle.

This makes the false assumption that 'pistol' rounds do no have the same stopping power that a rifle round does. This is flat out false as pistols shoot all types of rounds - some with far more stopping power than a .223 round from an AR.

 

[FA_Q2]

The matter of gun-related deaths is one whereof the ~33K of them each year, ~20K of those are suicides. Now I don't really give a tinker's damn about "suicide by gun" because I find it hard to believe that a person intent on killing themselves would not do so if they didn't have (access to) a gun, but having a gun, will do so. Also, I am not among the folks who would attempt to dissuade a person from killing themselves. I'm in the "get the help you need to stop being suicidal, or go on and get it over with so those whom you leave behind can move on with their lives" camp.

That leaves the ~13K remaining involuntary deaths, along with however many involuntary civilian-caused gunshot injuries, to consider and the question I ask myself is whether as a nation we should do something or several things to reduce the number of those types of deaths/injuries. I think the answer to that question is "yes." What comes next is how to do that, and if all means of doing so cannot be simultaneously implemented, we must then choose sequence for pursuing the various modalities that offer some prospect of reducing the deaths/injuries.

I am unlikely to expressly oppose any of the approaches suggested for curbing gun-related deaths and injuries. I don't especially care whether folks do or can own guns, and I don't think the Framers were infallible in their decision to pen the Constitution as they did. Accordingly, if there're proposals that offer some hope of curtailing gun deaths/injuries, I say, "Hell, let's try it and see if it works in the U.S." I think the value of human life is worth that much.

The problem is that gun control has been tried all over the planet to include here and has been shown to be totally ineffective at curbing death. The data exists in spades.

It is on the onus of those that want to deny established rights to PROVE that such measures are necessary and proper before they are implemented. You do not get to infringe on basic rights protected by the constitution just to see what happens - particularly when there is so much information already out there.

 

[FA_Q2]

I haven't looked for this piece of information. I don't know if it has been published yet. How far was the Dallas shooter from his targets? To the best of my memory, if the Dallas shooter was quite distant (100+ yards) from his targets, this is the first instance in which a "crazed" civilian shooter used the long range ability of a rifle to kill multiple individuals.

Beltway sniper attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, such has happened before.

 

[westwall]

I don't know where you guys are getting your info from, but according to this, banning guns seems to work.

IMO, the arguments on both sides of the question "what approaches to curbing gun deaths and injuries work?" is a non-starter. It's a non-starter because in the U.S., the largest source of funding that is available for researching what causes gun violence has been prohibited from being used to perform research into what causes gun violence. The consequence of that law is that there currently is not definitive answer to the question, and lacking a clear and "all but impossible to refute cogently and credibly" answer to that question, the debate on what tactics we should use and the sequence in which we should use them roils on and on.

A completely untrue statement. What is funny is the CDC has been doing ongoing research into gun violence trying to classify it as a disease, and yet, if they truly wanted to reduce needless deaths all they would have to do is reduce the amount of deaths that doctors commit due to malpractice, misdiagnosis, faulty drug prescribing, and simple mistake. That amounts to (according to the AMA) 220,000 people per year. Compared to gun deaths at around 30,000 and it is quite easy to see where the most benefit would, and could, be done.

But, it doesn't further their political aim which is to turn this country into yet another third world failure.

Blue:
Really? Why the CDC still isn’t researching gun violence, despite the ban being lifted two years ago

Red:
Well, then it should be quite simple for you to point us to one of those studies, shouldn't it?

DOH! You know how they say "you couldn't write a story like that!" Here you go silly person, TWO studies, among many, that were done by the CDC and the second link was last year. So....if they aren't allowed to do the research, why are they publishing the studies they are doing?

Hmmmmm?



PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH TO REDUCE THE THREAT OF FIREARM-RELATED VIOLENCE

"This project was supported by awards between the National Academy of Sciences and both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (#200-2011-38807) and the CDC Foundation with the Foundation’s support originating from The Annie E. Casey Foundation, The California Endowment, The California Wellness Foundation, The Joyce Foundation, Kaiser Permanente, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and one anonymous donor. The views presented in this publication are those of the editors and attributing authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for this project."

http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1#ii


DOH! NUMBER TWO....

http://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dms/files/cdcgunviolencereport10315.pdf

Thank you. I'll read them provided you tell me you think they are credible studies. Do you think they are credible studies?

They are from the CDC which you stated dind't, and couldn't exist. I will let you read them and come to your own conclusions. I don't wish to bias your opinion with mine.

 

[FA_Q2]

so...is it that he killed 5 people in one go that is more important than 1,567 people over a whole year....and 1,500 every year...vs. about 248 a year with rifles...is that the important thing for you....you just don't care if the murders are spread out over a year....

AR-15s are used in fewer crimes than knives or hands and feet....far fewer..


Here you go...the updated table....

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8



For 2014 included......


All rifles: 248 ------------(2013....285 (that means AR-15s kill even fewer than that))

Knives: 1,567-------------( 2013....1,490)

Hands and feet: 660----( 2013 .......687 )

Blunt objects: 435------ ( 2013....428)

And gun murders by rifle...been going down....

2009...351

2010...367

2011...332

2012...298

2013...285

2014...248

This is called a red herring fallacy.

You are trying to throw up a smoke screen to hide the killing power (force multiplication factor) of the AR's and AK's and their clones.

No, it is not a red herring. Those statistics are directly relevant to the asinine attempt to ban a popular rifle. The facts are blatant - banning this particular weapon will have zero results in reducing deaths.

Just be glad this shooter used a weapon rather than a bomb - something else he was clearly dabbling in, or you could have had a lot more killed.

Are bombs always more deadly? 3 dead in Boston bombing. 6 dead in Dallas shooting. Not looking good for that myth.

Always?

Absolutes are pointless. In general though, bombs are far more deadly in groups of people. It is not a myth.

 

[320 Years of History]

Here you go silly person, TWO studies, among many, that were done by the CDC and the second link was last year. So....if they aren't allowed to do the research, why are they publishing the studies they are doing?

First of all, I'm not a silly person and as a moderator, you should know better than to asperge members.

Second,

• The study titled "Elevated Rates of Urban Firearm Violence and Opportunities for Prevention—Wilmington, Delaware" is ostensibly a CDC study; however, it does not reflect the views and findings of the CDC. How do we know that? From the disclaimer at the bottom of the cover page: "The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." In other words, the CDC is not willing to stand behind the findings of the study, so while it's personnel did conduct the study, and the CDC seem to have funded the study, it's not accurate to say that the study provides the CDC's conclusions on the causes of gun violence.
  
  You will recall that my statement with which you take exception is, "the largest source of funding that is available for researching what causes gun violence has been prohibited from being used to perform research into what causes gun violence." I haven't yet read the study you linked, so I don't know whether it addresses the causes of gun violence in general, but I suspect from the title that it limits whatever it addresses to Delaware.
• The study titled "PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH TO REDUCE THE THREAT OF FIREARM-RELATED VIOLENCE" is just plain and simple not a CDC published study. The cover of the thing says the document was authored/sanctioned/commissioned by the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of the National Academies and published by the THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS. This paper contains a disclaimer very similar to that found on the cover page of the study noted above: "The views presented in this publication are those of the editors and attributing authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for this project."
  
  You will recall that my statement with which you take exception is, "the largest source of funding that is available for researching what causes gun violence has been prohibited from being used to perform research into what causes gun violence." I haven't yet read the study you linked, so I don't know whether it addresses the causes of gun violence in general, but I suspect from the title that it addresses the lines of critical inquiry that need to be explored/conducted to determine the causes of gun-related violence. That is not the same thing as researching the cause of gun violence or providing funding into the research about the cause of gun violence.

 

[320 Years of History]

I haven't looked for this piece of information. I don't know if it has been published yet. How far was the Dallas shooter from his targets? To the best of my memory, if the Dallas shooter was quite distant (100+ yards) from his targets, this is the first instance in which a "crazed" civilian shooter used the long range ability of a rifle to kill multiple individuals.

Beltway sniper attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, such has happened before.

TY. I forgot about that nut.

 

[320 Years of History]

They are from the CDC which you stated dind't, and couldn't exist. I will let you read them and come to your own conclusions. I don't wish to bias your opinion with mine.

I don't care that you agree with the conclusions; I care whether you find the studies to be rigorously enough conducted such that their findings have meaningful merit. I don't want to waste my time reading them if you don't find them credible and you will reply to my remarks that are based upon them by making some sort of claim that the writers of the study don't know what they are talking about or that they are just wrong, or that they screwed up in some meaningful way, or whatever. So, again, do you find the studies you cited to be credible?

 

[2aguy]

How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

I don't know nor can I estimate the sum, but it's safe to say that fewer of them would be in circulation had the ban been maintained.

And, based on the evidence provided by Norway and France, would have likewise had zero effect on mass shootings. Face it, bad people can get whatever weapons they want to commit these horrible crimes. Your bans do NOTHING to prevent them.

Red:
That was not the question asked, nor is that pertinent to my answer to the question that was asked.

You claim that an outright gun ban will prevent those nasty guns from getting into the hands of bad people. My factual data refutes your assertion, totally, completely, and utterly. In other words, your assertion is not just false. But catastrophically so.

Look at what what asked and what I wrote in reply to it. I did not say anything about "bad people" or what guns they may get hold of. I'll repeat what question I answered and my answer to it:

Question: How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

Answer: I don't know nor can I estimate the sum, but it's safe to say that fewer of them would be in circulation had the ban been maintained.
​

I directly answered the question that was asked. I didn't go off on some tangent about "bad people" or how many guns "bad people" may obtain, how they may obtain them, or why.

And that does not address the question here....the guy in Dallas did not use a weapon covered by the ban.......

Again....according to the Mother Jones list of mass shootings from 1982-2016....154 people have been murdered with rifles with detachable magazines....in each of those cases... a shot gun would have done the same amount of killing or like Virginia Tech a pistol...which killed 32 people......

knives murdered 1,567 people in just 2014.......over 6 times the number killed by rifles of all types...and that is every single year.....knives murder over 1,500 people every single year......

The "assault" weapon ban is just a feel good move for the uninformed, and one step for anti gun activists....

Considering there are 8,000,000 rifles of this type in the United States there is no need to ban them....

 

[2aguy]

Used a gun similar to those used in recent mass shootings.

He killed FIVE police officers.

How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

Reagan's rolling in his grave.

NEW YORK (WABC) -- Details are emerging about the weapon used to carry out the deadly ambush on police officers in Dallas, and while not confirmed, it is believed that the sniper used what is increasingly the weapon of choice in mass shootings.

"We will find that it was a military-style assault weapon with a large capacity magazine on it," Citizens Crime Commission president Richard Aborn said. "And this happens over and over and over again."

Last month, a military-style rifle was used by the gunman who killed 49 people at an Orlando nightclub. And last December, a husband and wife terrorist team killed 14 using a similar semi-automatic rifle. Adam Lanza used a military-type rifle in 2012 to kill 26 students and teachers at a school in Newtown Connecticut, and a similar AR-15-type military rifle was used to kill 12 people earlier that year in a Colorado movie theater.

"The AR-15 Assault weapon is the preferred weapon of these mass killers," former NYPD sergeant and FBI special agent Manuel Gomez said.

Gomez says that until Congress reinstates the ban on these military-style weapons, they will continue to be used in mass shootings because of their killing efficiency.

"You can shoot 50, 60, up to 100 rounds in one minute," he said. "And each round designed to enter the body and tear that piece that it entered apart."

A report by New York's Citizen Crime Commission concluded that after Congress lifted the ban on these military-style rifles in 2004, the number of people killed by semi-automatic, high-capacity guns tripled. Aborn said the Dallas police killings adds to their death toll.

There are 8 million of these rifles in private hands right now.....do you know how many people have been killed by these rifles.....wanna guess?

in 34 years 154 people have been murdered with these rifles....that's right....34 years....

Care to guess how many people have been killed by knives.....

in 2014 1,567 people were murdered by knives...and every year over 1,500 people are killed by knives over 6 times more people than are killed by all types of rifle.......

So......tell me again how bad these rifles are.....

The shooter also had military training, so next up the Loons will start labeling all veterans as a terror threat....oops, they already did.

Homeland Security on guard for ‘right-wing extremists’

WND? lol...what happened to you Bodie?

However, good. Right wing extremists are in this country in greater numbers than ISIS and are a far greater threat.

Clearly, your powers of observation are rather faulty.

I am not bodecea. She is my evil bearded twin from the anti-matter universe.

I was here first.

Yeah.....one or the both of you should change your names....I made that mistake last week or so........it is a shame too.......you don't deserve to be confused with that .......person.....

 

[2aguy]

Used a gun similar to those used in recent mass shootings.

He killed FIVE police officers.

How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

Reagan's rolling in his grave.

NEW YORK (WABC) -- Details are emerging about the weapon used to carry out the deadly ambush on police officers in Dallas, and while not confirmed, it is believed that the sniper used what is increasingly the weapon of choice in mass shootings.

"We will find that it was a military-style assault weapon with a large capacity magazine on it," Citizens Crime Commission president Richard Aborn said. "And this happens over and over and over again."

Last month, a military-style rifle was used by the gunman who killed 49 people at an Orlando nightclub. And last December, a husband and wife terrorist team killed 14 using a similar semi-automatic rifle. Adam Lanza used a military-type rifle in 2012 to kill 26 students and teachers at a school in Newtown Connecticut, and a similar AR-15-type military rifle was used to kill 12 people earlier that year in a Colorado movie theater.

"The AR-15 Assault weapon is the preferred weapon of these mass killers," former NYPD sergeant and FBI special agent Manuel Gomez said.

Gomez says that until Congress reinstates the ban on these military-style weapons, they will continue to be used in mass shootings because of their killing efficiency.

"You can shoot 50, 60, up to 100 rounds in one minute," he said. "And each round designed to enter the body and tear that piece that it entered apart."

A report by New York's Citizen Crime Commission concluded that after Congress lifted the ban on these military-style rifles in 2004, the number of people killed by semi-automatic, high-capacity guns tripled. Aborn said the Dallas police killings adds to their death toll.

If the shooter had used an assault rifle Reagan and Brady would have died almost instantly.

Wrong. They aren't death rays.

 

[2aguy]

I haven't looked for this piece of information. I don't know if it has been published yet. How far was the Dallas shooter from his targets? To the best of my memory, if the Dallas shooter was quite distant (100+ yards) from his targets, this is the first instance in which a "crazed" civilian shooter used the long range ability of a rifle to kill multiple individuals.

You would be mistaken....The Texas Tower shooter for one off the top of my head...then the D.C. snipers.....for another......

 

[2aguy]

How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

I don't know nor can I estimate the sum, but it's safe to say that fewer of them would be in circulation had the ban been maintained.

And, based on the evidence provided by Norway and France, would have likewise had zero effect on mass shootings. Face it, bad people can get whatever weapons they want to commit these horrible crimes. Your bans do NOTHING to prevent them.

Red:
That was not the question asked, nor is that pertinent to my answer to the question that was asked.

You claim that an outright gun ban will prevent those nasty guns from getting into the hands of bad people. My factual data refutes your assertion, totally, completely, and utterly. In other words, your assertion is not just false. But catastrophically so.

I don't know where you guys are getting your info from, but according to this, banning guns seems to work.

Gun control around the world
As an academic exercise, one might speculate whether law could play a constructive role in reducing the number or deadliness of mass shootings.
Most other advanced nations apparently think so, since they make it far harder for someone like the Charleston killer to get his hands on a Glock semiautomatic handgun or any other kind of firearm (universal background checks are common features of gun regulation in other developed countries).
• Germany: To buy a gun, anyone under the age of 25 has to pass a psychiatric evaluation (presumably 21-year-old Dylann Roof would have failed).
• Finland: Handgun license applicants are only allowed to purchase firearms if they can prove they are active members of regulated shooting clubs. Before they can get a gun, applicants must pass an aptitude test, submit to a police interview, and show they have a proper gun storage unit.
• Italy: To secure a gun permit, one must establish a genuine reason to possess a firearm and pass a background check considering both criminal and mental health records (again, presumably Dylann Roof would have failed).
• France: Firearms applicants must have no criminal record and pass a background check that considers the reason for the gun purchase and evaluates the criminal, mental, and health records of the applicant. (Dylann Roof would presumably have failed in this process).
• United Kingdom and Japan: Handguns are illegal for private citizens.
While mass shootings as well as gun homicides and suicides are not unknown in these countries, the overall rates are substantially higher in the United States than in these competitor nations.
While NRA supporters frequently challenge me on these statistics saying that this is only because "American blacks are so violent," it is important to note that white murder rates in the U.S. are well over twice as high as the murder rates in any of these other countries.
Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since 1996
The story of Australia, which had 13 mass shootings in the 18-year period from 1979 to 1996 but none in the succeeding 19 years, is worth examining.
The turning point was the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, in which a gunman killed 35 individuals using semiautomatic weapons.
In the wake of the massacre, the conservative federal government succeeded in implementing tough new gun control laws throughout the country. A large array of weapons were banned -- including the Glock semiautomatic handgun used in the Charleston shootings. The government also imposed a mandatory gun buy back that substantially reduced gun possession in Australia.
The effect was that both gun suicides and homicides (as well as total suicides and homicides)fell. In addition, the 1996 legislation made it a crime to use firearms in self-defense.
When I mention this to disbelieving NRA supporters they insist that crime must now be rampant in Australia. In fact, the Australian murder rate has fallen to close to one per 100,000 while the U.S. rate, thankfully lower than in the early 1990s, is still roughly at 4.5 per 100,000-- over four times as high. Moreover, robberies in Australia occur at only about half the rate of the U.S. (58 in Australia versus 113.1 per 100,000 in the U.S. in 2012).
How did Australia do it? Politically, it took a brave prime minister to face the rage of Australian gun interests.
John Howard wore a bullet-proof vest when he announced the proposed gun restrictions in June 1996. The deputy prime minister was hung in effigy. But Australia did not have a domestic gun industry to oppose the new measures so the will of the people was allowed to emerge. And today, support for the safer, gun-restricted Australia is so strong that going back would not be tolerated by the public.
That Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since 1996 is likely more than merely the result of the considerable reduction in guns -- it's certainly not the case that guns have disappeared altogether.

That information is incorrect......Australia has had multiple shootings where multiple people were killed....they just didn't reach the 4 body limit for a mass shooting......

Europe is awash in illegal guns....they are easily acquired...the mistake your link makes is equating access with use......all of those countries...their criminals can get fully automatic weapons easily.....they just don't use them as often to commit murder....

In Britain for example....after Dunblane, they banned and confiscated guns......but their gun crime rate did not go down....in fact, it spiked right after the ban, then returned to the same level it was at before the confiscation...in fact, last year their gun crime rate went up 4%......

Our non gun murder rate is higher than their entire murder rate too...different criminal cultures, not access to guns....

Britain, like most of Europe never had a gun murder problem in the first place....so confiscating guns did nothing ...since right now....if you have seen links I have posted in other threads..the British are arming more of their police, and sending in armed police patrols in areas of England that are high gun crime areas...I have linked to these stories...they are also finding more and more fully automatic weapons on the streets...and they are being used more often against police......

Does you link show that?


Japan......their society is non violent and non criminal...they have low levels of all crime...and gun control doesn't have anything to do with it...in fact, the Yakuza get guns easily.....guns and grenades...but their criminal culture focuses on a rigid heirarchy and the leaders want money....not killings over facebook insults...I have linked to the gang wars the Yakuza fought, the Season of the Pineapples...where the Yakuza were throwing grenades at each other...and shooting each other. The last gang war was in 2006 and lasted 7 years.....did your link talk about that.....

Also.....there is another war brewing in Japan.....but the police put the stop to it...how....gun control laws? No. They put a 30 year sentence on gun crimes......that has kept the Yakuza from using guns....after all these years...

And that is exactly what I and other 2nd Amendment supporters have said all along.....longer sentences for gun crime...that is how you stop gun criminals in our culture.....

 

[2aguy]

How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

I don't know nor can I estimate the sum, but it's safe to say that fewer of them would be in circulation had the ban been maintained.

And, based on the evidence provided by Norway and France, would have likewise had zero effect on mass shootings. Face it, bad people can get whatever weapons they want to commit these horrible crimes. Your bans do NOTHING to prevent them.

Red:
That was not the question asked, nor is that pertinent to my answer to the question that was asked.

You claim that an outright gun ban will prevent those nasty guns from getting into the hands of bad people. My factual data refutes your assertion, totally, completely, and utterly. In other words, your assertion is not just false. But catastrophically so.

I don't know where you guys are getting your info from, but according to this, banning guns seems to work.

Gun control around the world
As an academic exercise, one might speculate whether law could play a constructive role in reducing the number or deadliness of mass shootings.
Most other advanced nations apparently think so, since they make it far harder for someone like the Charleston killer to get his hands on a Glock semiautomatic handgun or any other kind of firearm (universal background checks are common features of gun regulation in other developed countries).
• Germany: To buy a gun, anyone under the age of 25 has to pass a psychiatric evaluation (presumably 21-year-old Dylann Roof would have failed).
• Finland: Handgun license applicants are only allowed to purchase firearms if they can prove they are active members of regulated shooting clubs. Before they can get a gun, applicants must pass an aptitude test, submit to a police interview, and show they have a proper gun storage unit.
• Italy: To secure a gun permit, one must establish a genuine reason to possess a firearm and pass a background check considering both criminal and mental health records (again, presumably Dylann Roof would have failed).
• France: Firearms applicants must have no criminal record and pass a background check that considers the reason for the gun purchase and evaluates the criminal, mental, and health records of the applicant. (Dylann Roof would presumably have failed in this process).
• United Kingdom and Japan: Handguns are illegal for private citizens.
While mass shootings as well as gun homicides and suicides are not unknown in these countries, the overall rates are substantially higher in the United States than in these competitor nations.
While NRA supporters frequently challenge me on these statistics saying that this is only because "American blacks are so violent," it is important to note that white murder rates in the U.S. are well over twice as high as the murder rates in any of these other countries.
Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since 1996
The story of Australia, which had 13 mass shootings in the 18-year period from 1979 to 1996 but none in the succeeding 19 years, is worth examining.
The turning point was the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, in which a gunman killed 35 individuals using semiautomatic weapons.
In the wake of the massacre, the conservative federal government succeeded in implementing tough new gun control laws throughout the country. A large array of weapons were banned -- including the Glock semiautomatic handgun used in the Charleston shootings. The government also imposed a mandatory gun buy back that substantially reduced gun possession in Australia.
The effect was that both gun suicides and homicides (as well as total suicides and homicides)fell. In addition, the 1996 legislation made it a crime to use firearms in self-defense.
When I mention this to disbelieving NRA supporters they insist that crime must now be rampant in Australia. In fact, the Australian murder rate has fallen to close to one per 100,000 while the U.S. rate, thankfully lower than in the early 1990s, is still roughly at 4.5 per 100,000-- over four times as high. Moreover, robberies in Australia occur at only about half the rate of the U.S. (58 in Australia versus 113.1 per 100,000 in the U.S. in 2012).
How did Australia do it? Politically, it took a brave prime minister to face the rage of Australian gun interests.
John Howard wore a bullet-proof vest when he announced the proposed gun restrictions in June 1996. The deputy prime minister was hung in effigy. But Australia did not have a domestic gun industry to oppose the new measures so the will of the people was allowed to emerge. And today, support for the safer, gun-restricted Australia is so strong that going back would not be tolerated by the public.
That Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since 1996 is likely more than merely the result of the considerable reduction in guns -- it's certainly not the case that guns have disappeared altogether.

From your link...they say that Australia hasn't had any mass shootings since 96....they didn't have many before that either....also.....

Can you point out which Australian gun control laws stopped any of the following shootings from becoming mass shootings....I have gathered a list of shootings, all post 1996....two happened just last year.......

The only thing that kept them from being mass shootings.....the shooter didn't choose to shoot more people......

your link is not honest...it is not accurate...

Okay....I have isolated shooting incidents in Australia that could just as easily have turned into mass shooting events....and yes, I know, you are going to move the goal posts and change the results.......in your post you qouted a study that showed no mass shootings in Australia after the ban..and that is obviously not true...look below.....and the only thing that kept some of these shootings from being mass shootings is pure dumb luck...

So no, the gun confiscation in Austrulia did not stop mass shootings....dumb luck did.....since all of these shooters had no trouble getting guns.....right?


Tell me.....how is anything other than luck that kept these from being mass shootings...since the shooter obviously was able to get a gun and shoot people in gun free Australia...right?

March 2016....


Number of shootings in Melbourne area continues to rise

Three people will appear in court in Geelong after shots were fired between two moving cars on Thursday night, as the problem with gun-related violence in the Melbourne area continues to escalate.

The shooting at Geelong and another separate incident at Frankston brings to 10 the number of shootings in the Melbourne and Geelong areas since February 2.

Three people were arrested after shots were fired between two moving cars just before 6:30pm at Norlane.
--------
4/28/16 gang shooting in Perth


4/28/16 port arthur shooting with assault rifle..

Man found shot in Port Arthur

Port Arthur Police are investigating a shooting at Dewalt and W. 14th Street. Police got the call at about 10:45 p.m. Thursday. When they arrived on the scene they found a 29-year-old man laying outside a car that was riddled with bullets. The man had a gunshot wound to the leg and was taken to Christus Southeast Texas St. Elizabeth in Beaumont. His injuries are not life-threatening.
Police say they believe the gun used was some sort of an assault rifle. There is no word on any suspects at this time.

----------------------
4/29/16....

'This isn't a random shooting': Man targeted in Sydney killing

A gunman is at large after a "targeted" shooting in Sydney's south-west that has left one man dead and two other people injured.
---------------------
Timeline of major crimes in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

25 January 1996 – Hillcrest murders – Peter May shot and killed his three children, his estranged wife and her parents in the Brisbane suburb of Hillcrest before killing himself.[54]

• 16 August 1998 – Victorian police officers Gary Silk and Rodney Miller were shot dead in an ambush by Bendali Debs and Jason Joseph Roberts in the Moorabbin Police murders.

• 3 August 1999 – La Trobe University shooting – Jonathan Brett Horrocks walked into the cafeteria in La Trobe university in Melbourne Victoria armed with a 38 caliber revolver handgun and opened fire killing Leon Capraro the boss and manager off the cafeteria and wounding a woman who was a student at the university.

• 26 May 2002 – A Vietnamese man walked into a Vietnamese wedding reception in Cabramatta Sydney, New South Wales armed with a handgun and opened fire wounding seven people.

• • 21 October 2002 – Monash University shooting – Huan Xiang opened fire in a tutorial room, killing two and injuring five.

• 18 June 2007 – Melbourne CBD shooting – Christopher Wayne Hudson opened fire on three people, killing one and seriously wounding two others who intervened when Hudson was assaulting his girlfriend at a busy Melbourne intersection during the morning peak. He gave himself up to police in Wallan, Victoria on 20 June.[71]

• 28 April 2011 – 2011 Hectorville siege – Donato Anthony Corbo shot dead Kobus and Annetjie Snyman and their son-in-law Luc Mombers and seriously wounded Mr Mombers' 14-year-old son Marcel and a police officer at Hectorville, South Australia before being arrested after an eight-hour stand off.

• 28 April 2012 – A man opened fire in a busy shopping mall in Robina on the Gold Coast shooting Bandidos bikie Jacques Teamo. A woman who was an innocent bystander was also injured from a shotgun blast to the leg. Neither of the victims died, but the incident highlighted the recent increase in gun crime across major Australian cities including Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide.[citation needed]

• 23 May 2012 – Christopher 'Badness' Binse, a career criminal well known to police, was arrested after a 44-hour siege at an East Keilor home in Melbourne's north west. During the siege, Binse fired several shots at police and refused to co-operate with negotiators; eventually tear gas had to be used to force him out of the house, at which point he refused to put down his weapon and was then sprayed with a volley of non-lethal bullets.[citation needed]

• 8 March 2013 – Queen Street mall siege – Lee Matthew Hiller entered the shopping mall on Queen Street Brisbane Queensland armed with a revolver and threatened shoppers and staff with the revolver, causing a 90-minute siege which ended when Hiller was shot and wounded in the arm by a police officer from the elite Specialist Emergency Response Team. Hiller was then later taken to hospital and was treated for his injury; he pleaded gulity to 20 charges and was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in jail with a non-parole period of two years and three months.[citation needed]
• 9 September 2014 – Lockhart massacre – Geoff Hunt shot and killed his wife, Kim, his 10-year-old son Fletcher, and his daughters Mia, eight and Phoebe, six before killing himself on a farm in Lockhart in the Riverina district near Wagga Wagga New South Wales. The body of Geoff Hunt and a firearm are later found in a dam on the farm by police divers and a suicide note written by Geoff Hunt is also found inside the house on the farm.[citation needed]

• 7 November 2014 – Jordy Brook carjacked a Channel 7 news cameraman at gun point during a crime spree on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland. He was later captured and arrested by police after luring police on a high speed chase and crashing the car.[citation needed

• 15 December 2014 – 2014 Sydney hostage crisis – Seventeen people were taken hostage in a cafe in Martin Place, Sydney by Man Haron Monis. The hostage crisis was resolved in the early hours of 16 December, sixteen hours after it commenced, when armed police stormed the premises. Monis and two hostages were killed in the course of the crisis.[87]

• 27 June 2015 – Hermidale triple murder – the bodies of three people, two men and a woman are found shot dead on a property in a rural farming community in the town of Hermidale west of Nyngan, the bodies of 28-year-old Jacob Cumberland his father 59-year-old Stephen Cumberland and a 36-year-old woman were found with gun shot wounds, the body of Jacob Cumberland was found on the drive way of the property, the body of the 36-year-old woman was found in the backyard of the property and the body of Stephen Cumberland was found in a burnt out caravan on the property. 61-year-old Allan O'Connor is later arrested and charged with the murders.

• 10 September 2015 – A 49-year-old woman is shot dead in a Mc Donald's restaurant in Gold Coast by her 57-year-old ex partner, who then turned the gun on himself afterwards and shot himself dead.
• 2 October 2015 - 2015 Parramatta shooting On 2 October 2015, Farhad Khalil Mohammad Jabar, a 15-year-old boy, shot and killed Curtis Cheng, an unarmed police civilian finance worker, outside the New South Wales Police Force headquarters in Parramatta, Australia. Jabar was subsequently shot and killed by special constables who were protecting the police station.

 

[2aguy]

Used a gun similar to those used in recent mass shootings.

He killed FIVE police officers.

How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

Reagan's rolling in his grave.

NEW YORK (WABC) -- Details are emerging about the weapon used to carry out the deadly ambush on police officers in Dallas, and while not confirmed, it is believed that the sniper used what is increasingly the weapon of choice in mass shootings.

"We will find that it was a military-style assault weapon with a large capacity magazine on it," Citizens Crime Commission president Richard Aborn said. "And this happens over and over and over again."

Last month, a military-style rifle was used by the gunman who killed 49 people at an Orlando nightclub. And last December, a husband and wife terrorist team killed 14 using a similar semi-automatic rifle. Adam Lanza used a military-type rifle in 2012 to kill 26 students and teachers at a school in Newtown Connecticut, and a similar AR-15-type military rifle was used to kill 12 people earlier that year in a Colorado movie theater.

"The AR-15 Assault weapon is the preferred weapon of these mass killers," former NYPD sergeant and FBI special agent Manuel Gomez said.

Gomez says that until Congress reinstates the ban on these military-style weapons, they will continue to be used in mass shootings because of their killing efficiency.

"You can shoot 50, 60, up to 100 rounds in one minute," he said. "And each round designed to enter the body and tear that piece that it entered apart."

A report by New York's Citizen Crime Commission concluded that after Congress lifted the ban on these military-style rifles in 2004, the number of people killed by semi-automatic, high-capacity guns tripled. Aborn said the Dallas police killings adds to their death toll.

If the shooter had used an assault rifle Reagan and Brady would have died almost instantly.

Though I understand why you said that, the more likely reality is that were Hinkley to have used a rifle of pretty much any sort and at the same range in which he used his handgun, he probably wouldn't have had an opportunity to shoot Reagan or Brady. After all, he began shooting from just 10 feet away from the President. I think the Secret Service would have noticed him carrying a rifle long before he managed to fire it and either confiscated it or removed Hinkley from the scene.

Refrain, if you would, from posting the obvious. NO KIDDING.

The comment was about the rounds used, I'm not sure why that wouldn't be obvious but I guess not everyone knows the difference between a pistol round and what type ammo is used in an assault weapon. Hinkley used a very cheap $50 .22 pistol. The rounds were explosive rounds but the one that hit Reagan didn't explode. They think the one that hit Brady in the head did explode, but it was a .22 so even a direct hit in the head didn't kill him.

Velocity of a .22 long rifle about 1,200ft/sec
Velocity of a .223 round from an AR-15 about 3,200ft/sec

Nearly three times the velocity. Damage done to tissue corresponds to the energy contained in the projectile when it enters tissue. Brady's head would have likely exploded and Reagan wouldn't have made it to the hospital.

No one hit by Hinkley died from ten feet away because the gun he used fired the cartridge on the left. A .22 long rifle or similar, even an explosive round didn't kill Brady. The shooter in Dallas used a weapon that fired something similar to the cartridge on the right. From moderate distance on moving targets and he killed 5 people very rapidly.

This is the problem with assault rifles, it isn't the rifle, it is the ammo it uses. Pass a law so that all assault rifles can only physically use the cartridge on the left and there is no need to ban these weapons. They then become the same as an 1880's .22 rifle.

Hinkley could have simply used a .357 revolver...6 shots.....it has a bigger bullet and lots of energy at that range.....

you are completely clueless....

 

[2aguy]

Used a gun similar to those used in recent mass shootings.

He killed FIVE police officers.

How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

Reagan's rolling in his grave.

NEW YORK (WABC) -- Details are emerging about the weapon used to carry out the deadly ambush on police officers in Dallas, and while not confirmed, it is believed that the sniper used what is increasingly the weapon of choice in mass shootings.

"We will find that it was a military-style assault weapon with a large capacity magazine on it," Citizens Crime Commission president Richard Aborn said. "And this happens over and over and over again."

Last month, a military-style rifle was used by the gunman who killed 49 people at an Orlando nightclub. And last December, a husband and wife terrorist team killed 14 using a similar semi-automatic rifle. Adam Lanza used a military-type rifle in 2012 to kill 26 students and teachers at a school in Newtown Connecticut, and a similar AR-15-type military rifle was used to kill 12 people earlier that year in a Colorado movie theater.

"The AR-15 Assault weapon is the preferred weapon of these mass killers," former NYPD sergeant and FBI special agent Manuel Gomez said.

Gomez says that until Congress reinstates the ban on these military-style weapons, they will continue to be used in mass shootings because of their killing efficiency.

"You can shoot 50, 60, up to 100 rounds in one minute," he said. "And each round designed to enter the body and tear that piece that it entered apart."

A report by New York's Citizen Crime Commission concluded that after Congress lifted the ban on these military-style rifles in 2004, the number of people killed by semi-automatic, high-capacity guns tripled. Aborn said the Dallas police killings adds to their death toll.

If the shooter had used an assault rifle Reagan and Brady would have died almost instantly.

Though I understand why you said that, the more likely reality is that were Hinkley to have used a rifle of pretty much any sort and at the same range in which he used his handgun, he probably wouldn't have had an opportunity to shoot Reagan or Brady. After all, he began shooting from just 10 feet away from the President. I think the Secret Service would have noticed him carrying a rifle long before he managed to fire it and either confiscated it or removed Hinkley from the scene.

Refrain, if you would, from posting the obvious. NO KIDDING.

The comment was about the rounds used, I'm not sure why that wouldn't be obvious but I guess not everyone knows the difference between a pistol round and what type ammo is used in an assault weapon. Hinkley used a very cheap $50 .22 pistol. The rounds were explosive rounds but the one that hit Reagan didn't explode. They think the one that hit Brady in the head did explode, but it was a .22 so even a direct hit in the head didn't kill him.

Velocity of a .22 long rifle about 1,200ft/sec
Velocity of a .223 round from an AR-15 about 3,200ft/sec

Nearly three times the velocity. Damage done to tissue corresponds to the energy contained in the projectile when it enters tissue. Brady's head would have likely exploded and Reagan wouldn't have made it to the hospital.

No one hit by Hinkley died from ten feet away because the gun he used fired the cartridge on the left. A .22 long rifle or similar, even an explosive round didn't kill Brady. The shooter in Dallas used a weapon that fired something similar to the cartridge on the right. From moderate distance on moving targets and he killed 5 people very rapidly.

This is the problem with assault rifles, it isn't the rifle, it is the ammo it uses. Pass a law so that all assault rifles can only physically use the cartridge on the left and there is no need to ban these weapons. They then become the same as an 1880's .22 rifle.

There is no need to ban 8,000,000 when they have only been used in mass shootings to kill 154 people in 34 years.

knives murdered 1,567 people in 2014, and over 1,500 people every year....that is over 6 times the rate of all rifle types.....

Rifles are not a problem.........you guys are just fixated on them........

 

[2aguy]

I don't know where you guys are getting your info from, but according to this, banning guns seems to work.

IMO, the arguments on both sides of the question "what approaches to curbing gun deaths and injuries work?" is a non-starter. It's a non-starter because in the U.S., the largest source of funding that is available for researching what causes gun violence has been prohibited from being used to perform research into what causes gun violence. The consequence of that law is that there currently is not definitive answer to the question, and lacking a clear and "all but impossible to refute cogently and credibly" answer to that question, the debate on what tactics we should use and the sequence in which we should use them roils on and on.

t's a non-starter because in the U.S., the largest source of funding that is available for researching what causes gun violence has been prohibited from being used to perform research into what causes gun violence.

That is a non true statement.......


How is it stopped when studies like this have continued to be done...the only thing the CDC is prohibited from doing is biased research.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/25/us/cdc-gun-violence-wilmington.html?_r=0



When epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to this city, they were not here to track an outbreak of meningitis or study the effectiveness of a particular vaccine.



They were here to examine gun violence.

This city of about 70,000 had a 45 percent jump in shootings from 2011 to 2013, and the violence has remained stubbornly high; 25 shooting deaths have been reported this year, slightly more than last year, according to the mayor’s office
.-------



The final report, which has been submitted to the state, reached a conclusion that many here said they already knew: that there are certain patterns in the lives of many who commit gun violence.

“The majority of individuals involved in urban firearm violence are young men with substantial violence involvement preceding the more serious offense of a firearm crime,” the report said. “Our findings suggest that integrating data systems could help these individuals better receive the early, comprehensive help that they need to prevent violence involvement.”

Researchers analyzed data on 569 people charged with firearm crimes from 2009 to May 21, 2014, and looked for certain risk factors in their lives, such as whether they had been unemployed, had received help from assistance programs, had been possible victims of child abuse, or had been shot or stabbed. The idea was to show that linking such data could create a better understanding of who might need help before becoming involved in violence.

 

[2aguy]

I don't know where you guys are getting your info from, but according to this, banning guns seems to work.

IMO, the arguments on both sides of the question "what approaches to curbing gun deaths and injuries work?" is a non-starter. It's a non-starter because in the U.S., the largest source of funding that is available for researching what causes gun violence has been prohibited from being used to perform research into what causes gun violence. The consequence of that law is that there currently is not definitive answer to the question, and lacking a clear and "all but impossible to refute cogently and credibly" answer to that question, the debate on what tactics we should use and the sequence in which we should use them roils on and on.

Again....it is a non true statement....you have bought into anti gun propaganda.......

Ban on "Gun Violence" Research Does not Exist

Also...this.....

Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research Budget

Firstly, CDC was not banned from doing the research. In fact, CDC articles pertaining to firearms have held steady since the defunding, and even increased to 121 in 2013.


CDC very recently released a 16-page report that was commissioned by the city council of Wilmington, Delaware, on factors contributing to its abnormally high gun crime, and methods of prevention. The study weighed factors such as where the guns were coming from, the sex of the offenders, likeliness of committing a gun crime, and how unemployment plays a factor.

In other words it studied, the environment surrounding the crime.
This did not go over well with some in the media, who were disappointed it didn’t implicate firearms as a cause and not an effect. Kate Masters of VICE.com wrote, “If the CDC wasn’t going to consider the role of firearms in Wilmington’s gun crimes, why do the study at all?” That sounds an awful lot like, “If you have nothing bad to say about guns, then don’t say anything.”

 

[2aguy]

I don't know where you guys are getting your info from, but according to this, banning guns seems to work.

IMO, the arguments on both sides of the question "what approaches to curbing gun deaths and injuries work?" is a non-starter. It's a non-starter because in the U.S., the largest source of funding that is available for researching what causes gun violence has been prohibited from being used to perform research into what causes gun violence. The consequence of that law is that there currently is not definitive answer to the question, and lacking a clear and "all but impossible to refute cogently and credibly" answer to that question, the debate on what tactics we should use and the sequence in which we should use them roils on and on.

Correct. All at the behest of the NRA. Believe it or not, the NRA hasn't always been like this. At one time, before the crazies took over and before politicians realized there's money in guns, the NRA actually supported common sense gun control.

Okay....again.....you say "common sense" gun control as if that is all you have to say....

Please....explain to us what common sense gun control law has been stopped by the NRA...then explain how that law would actually stop criminals and mass shooters from getting guns......

you guys think that just saying "they oppose common sense gun control" that that is all you have to say and you score your points...no longer......

if you can't name, explain and defend the laws you want.......then you are being dishonest and a dupe of the anti gun activists.....

 

[2aguy]

Refrain, if you would, from posting the elementary school version of the obvious.

The comment was about the rounds used, I'm not sure why that wouldn't be obvious...

It's not obvious that the comment was about the rounds used and not the weapon because the OP question to which you responded asks about weapons not the rounds they fire. Maybe the OP meant to ask about the rounds that different guns fire, but that's not what he asked about. He asked about the weapons, the gun itself

How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?

So I ask you, why was it not obvious to you that the question asked asks about the gun and not about the bullets the gun fires? Even the article the OP-er cites opens, "Details are emerging about the weapon used to carry out the deadly ambush on police officers in Dallas, and while not confirmed, it is believed that the sniper used what is increasingly the weapon of choice in mass shootings." What about that makes you think the type of rounds fired are the central theme of the article and thus the central theme of the OP?

it wasn't the AR-15....it was a weapon not even covered by the 1990s assault weapon ban....