20 victims reported at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This particular deranged murderer made a lot of noise and managed to kill (I think) just two people. The very list of knife events you reject demonstrates how quickly the body count can rise with a committed knife attacker. Bladed weapons were responsible for industrial-strength slaughter for millennia.

Besides the two dead, there were 17 injured including 14 children. Many of these (especially among those classified as being in critical condition) will likely be crippled for life.

Also note that the murderer shot at the children through the Church windows. This is something that could not be done with a knife. Yes, a committed knife attacker can kill multiple people, but it is much, much easier done with a gun.

+1

Also BFR. If you were shopping at Target with your kids and a crazy violent person came into the store, would you rather they have an AR-15 or a knife? … there is only one sane answer here

An ER doctor wrote an oped about the damage that an AR15 does to the body compared to a single shot pistol. He stated that most victims of one shot gun shot wounds can be saved, but the damage to a victim from an AR15 was basically like a blender came through the insides of the person.

There is no reason for an AR15, that's for sure.

The terminal ballistics of a 5.56 rifle bullet are relatively unpredictable and depend on, among other things, the weight and jacket material of the bullet, its design, the propellant used, and the length and twist rate of the barrel, as well as the range from which the wound is inflicted, and the build and clothing of the individual struck. Even when all else is equal, two different 5.56 wounds can vary from a small through and through wound to one with greater tissue destruction. The AR15 is popular but it is not the only firearm that uses 5.56 ammunition. And not all AR15’s use that round. The idea that a bullet wound is ever “like a blender came through a person” is simply ridiculous hyperbole.

Not hyperbole when it hits a child.

-RN

From your alleged sample size of?

I trust the experts more than some ammosexual anonymous poster.

"Instead of just being sort of point on straight through, there's more erratic passage of the bullet through the victim so the extent of tissue damage is greater," Shapiro explained.

What's more, assault weapons can cause a process called cavitation to occur, meaning it creates a large cavity in the body, destroying tissues and organs.

"The difference with high velocity bullets and military-grade weapons...is the damage they inflict on the human body and our internal organs are much more gruesome and tend to have what is known as a blast effect, because that bullet is carrying so much energy with it as it enters the human body," Griggs said. "Instead of, for example, if the bullet traveled through the lung, instead of a hole in the lung, we're looking at an exploded lung."

Griggs explained that the same holds true if a bullet hits a human bone. A bullet from a handgun that hits a bone might fracture the bone, but a bullet from a semi-automatic rifle might shatter the bone due to the high velocity.

"Children, their organs are a lot more compact, and they have a lot less fat surrounding their vital organs," Griggs said. "And so, you can imagine that a bullet that is causing a blast effect inside their body, inside their abdomen or their torso or their chest, it's not just going to explode, or tear apart, their lung, but also their heart. Not just going to completely shatter their liver, but also their spleen, causing catastrophic fatal bleeding."

"When we see a child who has been shot with an AR-15-style rifle, there is often very little hope -- depending on where the bullet has hit them in their body -- that we can save their life even if they make it to the hospital," she said. "And devastatingly, the children who were shot in Nashville were dead on arrival to the hospital. There's nothing that trauma surgery team could do and that is very classic of what we have come to see as the norm."

https://abc7.com/post/why-ar15-semi-automatic-weapons-dangerous/13051721/

You ammosexuals have a mental illness.

Name calling is so puerile, and the sure sign of insecure belief in a weak argument.

“Military grade” is another rhetorical buzzword without meaning.

The 5.56 cartridge was developed to hunt “varmints” like prairie dogs and only later adopted by the military.

Grandpa’s old hunting rifle very likely was chambered in a military cartridge and may even have been a “sporterixed” ex-military “weapon of war.”

Focuding on inanimate objects is a waste of time driven by magical thinking.

Yawn. Sorry but we still want a weapons ban.

Yawn. To quote Mick Jagger “you can’t always get what you want.”

Do you realize how absolutely despicable you sound on this thread? Are dead kids just collateral to you?

k

Do you realize how shrill and deranged you sound on this thread? Are the rights of millions of decent people just collateral to you as you leverage innocent murder victims to push magical “solutions” that have no possible chance of actually accomplishing anything?

Correct - some shrillness is the non-psychopathic response to the murder of children. The supposed “right” to bear arms is a suicidal perversion of the constitution and I look forward to it being corrected. The fact that you keep repeating that we think gun control is a “magical solution” to gun violence makes you sound not only like a psychopath but also stupid.

Name calling and personal attack. Drags down the discussion to primitive levels.

Wrong.

People who look away from the shooting of CHILDREN and act like the only solution is "thoughts and prayers" or worthless talk but zero meaningful and compassionate action about "mental illness" are the ones drag us down. People who call a normal reaction to shooting of children, the desire to make a real change to protect children, "shrill" and "deranged" in the name of keeping your guns are compensating for some real lack of decency. You are useless and without compassion.

The problem is that a paper “ban” on inanimate objects will accomplish nothing — as is amply demonstrated by many similar failures with other objects; any attempt at an enforced “ban” will never get political or social support; there is no possible way to remove firearms from circulation; if they are removed from circulation they will be replaced and in the process empower criminal cartels.

If you want “real change,” start by asking what happened between now and, say, the 1970’s, when students routinely took guns to school and nobody got shot — when actual military firearms that were the functional equivalent of AR15’s if not more powerful were sold by the millions as “surplus” and nobody got mowed down in droves.

Well if we go back to the 1970s, we can invent all sorts of things. I pick PFAs and microplastics.

PS waiting periods are shown to reduce gun deaths by 17 percent. Small, still good enough for me when coupled with other restrictions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The gun for him is a TOOL.

His own mental illness is revealed in his writings. You have to deal with the mental illness.

Mental illness is a global issue. Every country has people with mental illness. But, other civilized countries don't have mass shooting problems like we do. They don't have easy access to guns like we do.

You have to deal with the easy access to guns AND mental illness.

Access to firearms in the US is “easy” only in comparison to totalitarian models that would be unlawful here. There are layers upon layers of federal and state laws governing the purchase and use of firearms in the US. The criminal misuse of firearms is unlawful everywhere.

That’s true. Do we know yet how the weapons were obtained in this case? Was this guy able to buy his own guns?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big Pharma is a big problem here not guns. Majority of these shooters are on SSRI’s or recently, puberty blockers. Nobody wants to call out the elephant in the room:
Big Pharma

It is insane to me how among the listed side effects for SSRIs - drugs given for severe depression - are suicidal thoughts and suicidal behavior! What are the point of these poisonous things???

It’s also dumb that teens can’t vape or smoke until 18 or drink till they’re 21 because alcohol is considered a mind altering drug yet they can take SSRI’s or completely change their gender with puberty blockers while underage.

Teens are already mentally not all the way there so imagine with medication

You can’t drink until 21 but you can buy a gun at 18.

Guns should require a safety class and test (like driving lessons) that come with a cost and parental and medical provider sign-off before anyone gets close to having the privilege to buy a gun.

This is the solution! A start. Banning firearms is the end goal, but this is what we do as soon as we have a real leader in the USA. Or even on state level in states with sensible lawmakers.

Why not just start with the end goal? Don’t you even care about all the people who will still die getting from your “start point” to the end goal? What about them? Don’t they matter? You’re willing to sacrifice them to incremental progress?

That’s F’d up.

Firearms cannot be banned. Not lawfully. Not practically. It is a reality-denying confabulation to insist on magical solutions while ignoring the root causes of psychopathy and criminal violence.

They actually can be banned but Republicans refuse to allow it.

“Banned” like illicit narcotics and all the other contraband in which the country is, and has long been, awash? There is a federal “ban” on marijuana. Illegitimate and unprescribed fentanyl is “banned” everywhere. We all know how that’s worked out.

Do you think we are idiots that don’t know other nations don’t have our gun violence issues?

“Gun violence” is a handy rhetorical buzzword for criminal misuse of firearms.

I didn’t call anybody any names. If somebody feels like they’re an idiot when the error of what purports to be their reasoning becomes evident, that feeling would be for them to examine.

Other nations, as has been repeatedly and exhaustively discussed in this and other threads, are not the same as the United States. There are places in the world where essentially every home has a fully automatic, machine gun, battle rifle, weapon of war, AK pattern rifle. They have plenty of internecine violence but nobody is shooting up schools.

It is delusional to believe that firearms can be magically “disappeared” from the United States, never to reappear. Continuing to posit that as a “solution” to unlawful criminal violence committed with firearms distracts from the real problem of criminal psychopaths and their psychopathic criminal misconduct.

In any event, the point of my post was that paper “bans” may briefly feel satisfying, but that there is a long way between what’s on paper and what’s actually happening in reality.

NP.

+1000

This post sums it up so well. So many societal problems far, far beyond shootings, could be addressed and helped if we took mental health as seriously as other countries do.

A good start is to bring back the in-patient mental hospitals to help the ones most in-need in our country. We never should have eliminated those facilities. Reform, yes, but not the wholesale closure which we implemented.

I agree with you we need to fix societal issues like better inpatient mental health treatment, but I disagree with the PP that gun reform means “paper bans.”

We need —

Gun buy backs. Offer financial incentives to get as many off the street as possible, no questions asked during a certain phase-in period.

Strict liability (e.g, someone else accesses your gun and shoots up a school or you leave it unattended so a toddler kills themself, this is some level of homicide). Make a big show of charging people as accessories to crimes so we can scare the crap out of people who aren’t keeping their guns secure. If you own a gun, you own the result of anyone harmed by it. If you are a responsible gun owner already taking precautions, you should have no problem with this. Only people who know they are careless will have anything to worry about. Exemptions for people who timely report stolen weapons.

Mandatory gun registration and requiring storage in a biometric safe when it’s not being carried on your person. This goes back to the strict liability above. Your gun is either on your person or in a safe. If you fail to do so, you accept civil and criminal liability for whatever happens with that gun. Intent for the result itself doesn’t matter (see felony murder rules in many states).

Failure to register a gun is a felony and make it easier for the government to confiscate guns from people who don’t have registration. This includes finding guns at traffic stops.

Mandatory insurance and tracking/limits regarding the amount of ammunition you can buy. If I can manage to show my ID to buy cold medicine, then people can show an ID to buy bullets, which kill people. Rates go up the more guns and ammo you buy.

Stricter enforcement of existing laws. No more “second chances” for people who commit gun crimes. A friend of mine was murdered by someone who had a prior gun charge that was pled down and had been let back out after just 2 years. I think if you commit a felony with a gun (robbery, assault, etc.) you get a mandatory minimum of 20 years.

Also, stop charging 16 and 17 year olds as juveniles. The vast majority of teens are not out shooting people so this isn’t simply dumb teenage behavior. At this point they’re old enough to understand their actions. They just don’t want the consequences.

Improvement in family courts and prosecution of domestic violence. Stop making parents hand their kids over for visits with nut jobs known to be violent.

Requirements for social media companies to use AI to flag manifestos and posts with guns. It’s absolutely infuriating that this Minn shooter uploaded looney tunes videos to YouTube and no one did a damn thing.

These are just off the top of my head. I’m sure as technology advances we can build on this.

Those are great solutions if you're talking about a law abiding population.

Most of those won't work once they get past straw buyers or the firearms are reported stolen. They would merely be additional charges layered on for a plea agreement.

So go hard after the straw buyers and put them away for 20 years. Take away the incentive for anyone to want to help criminals.

If you’re having to show a Real ID, pass a background check, buy insurance, have to document your ammo purchases, etc. then people may think twice. And it would be easier to figure out who is buying them for others. Maybe even AI could be used to flag concerning applications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The gun for him is a TOOL.

His own mental illness is revealed in his writings. You have to deal with the mental illness.

Mental illness is a global issue. Every country has people with mental illness. But, other civilized countries don't have mass shooting problems like we do. They don't have easy access to guns like we do.

You have to deal with the easy access to guns AND mental illness.

Access to firearms in the US is “easy” only in comparison to totalitarian models that would be unlawful here. There are layers upon layers of federal and state laws governing the purchase and use of firearms in the US. The criminal misuse of firearms is unlawful everywhere.

That’s true. Do we know yet how the weapons were obtained in this case? Was this guy able to buy his own guns?

Yes he had no criminal history. He also was very clearly mentally ill and a screening for that may have been helpful. Unclear if family was aware he had guns and could have enacted red flag laws which have saved lives in other cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big Pharma is a big problem here not guns. Majority of these shooters are on SSRI’s or recently, puberty blockers. Nobody wants to call out the elephant in the room:
Big Pharma

It is insane to me how among the listed side effects for SSRIs - drugs given for severe depression - are suicidal thoughts and suicidal behavior! What are the point of these poisonous things???

It’s also dumb that teens can’t vape or smoke until 18 or drink till they’re 21 because alcohol is considered a mind altering drug yet they can take SSRI’s or completely change their gender with puberty blockers while underage.

Teens are already mentally not all the way there so imagine with medication

You can’t drink until 21 but you can buy a gun at 18.

Guns should require a safety class and test (like driving lessons) that come with a cost and parental and medical provider sign-off before anyone gets close to having the privilege to buy a gun.

This is the solution! A start. Banning firearms is the end goal, but this is what we do as soon as we have a real leader in the USA. Or even on state level in states with sensible lawmakers.

Why not just start with the end goal? Don’t you even care about all the people who will still die getting from your “start point” to the end goal? What about them? Don’t they matter? You’re willing to sacrifice them to incremental progress?

That’s F’d up.

Firearms cannot be banned. Not lawfully. Not practically. It is a reality-denying confabulation to insist on magical solutions while ignoring the root causes of psychopathy and criminal violence.

They actually can be banned but Republicans refuse to allow it.

“Banned” like illicit narcotics and all the other contraband in which the country is, and has long been, awash? There is a federal “ban” on marijuana. Illegitimate and unprescribed fentanyl is “banned” everywhere. We all know how that’s worked out.

Do you think we are idiots that don’t know other nations don’t have our gun violence issues?

“Gun violence” is a handy rhetorical buzzword for criminal misuse of firearms.

I didn’t call anybody any names. If somebody feels like they’re an idiot when the error of what purports to be their reasoning becomes evident, that feeling would be for them to examine.

Other nations, as has been repeatedly and exhaustively discussed in this and other threads, are not the same as the United States. There are places in the world where essentially every home has a fully automatic, machine gun, battle rifle, weapon of war, AK pattern rifle. They have plenty of internecine violence but nobody is shooting up schools.

It is delusional to believe that firearms can be magically “disappeared” from the United States, never to reappear. Continuing to posit that as a “solution” to unlawful criminal violence committed with firearms distracts from the real problem of criminal psychopaths and their psychopathic criminal misconduct.

In any event, the point of my post was that paper “bans” may briefly feel satisfying, but that there is a long way between what’s on paper and what’s actually happening in reality.

NP.

+1000

This post sums it up so well. So many societal problems far, far beyond shootings, could be addressed and helped if we took mental health as seriously as other countries do.

A good start is to bring back the in-patient mental hospitals to help the ones most in-need in our country. We never should have eliminated those facilities. Reform, yes, but not the wholesale closure which we implemented.

I agree with you we need to fix societal issues like better inpatient mental health treatment, but I disagree with the PP that gun reform means “paper bans.”

We need —

Gun buy backs. Offer financial incentives to get as many off the street as possible, no questions asked during a certain phase-in period.

Strict liability (e.g, someone else accesses your gun and shoots up a school or you leave it unattended so a toddler kills themself, this is some level of homicide). Make a big show of charging people as accessories to crimes so we can scare the crap out of people who aren’t keeping their guns secure. If you own a gun, you own the result of anyone harmed by it. If you are a responsible gun owner already taking precautions, you should have no problem with this. Only people who know they are careless will have anything to worry about. Exemptions for people who timely report stolen weapons.

Mandatory gun registration and requiring storage in a biometric safe when it’s not being carried on your person. This goes back to the strict liability above. Your gun is either on your person or in a safe. If you fail to do so, you accept civil and criminal liability for whatever happens with that gun. Intent for the result itself doesn’t matter (see felony murder rules in many states).

Failure to register a gun is a felony and make it easier for the government to confiscate guns from people who don’t have registration. This includes finding guns at traffic stops.

Mandatory insurance and tracking/limits regarding the amount of ammunition you can buy. If I can manage to show my ID to buy cold medicine, then people can show an ID to buy bullets, which kill people. Rates go up the more guns and ammo you buy.

Stricter enforcement of existing laws. No more “second chances” for people who commit gun crimes. A friend of mine was murdered by someone who had a prior gun charge that was pled down and had been let back out after just 2 years. I think if you commit a felony with a gun (robbery, assault, etc.) you get a mandatory minimum of 20 years.

Also, stop charging 16 and 17 year olds as juveniles. The vast majority of teens are not out shooting people so this isn’t simply dumb teenage behavior. At this point they’re old enough to understand their actions. They just don’t want the consequences.

Improvement in family courts and prosecution of domestic violence. Stop making parents hand their kids over for visits with nut jobs known to be violent.

Requirements for social media companies to use AI to flag manifestos and posts with guns. It’s absolutely infuriating that this Minn shooter uploaded looney tunes videos to YouTube and no one did a damn thing.

These are just off the top of my head. I’m sure as technology advances we can build on this.

Those are great solutions if you're talking about a law abiding population.

Most of those won't work once they get past straw buyers or the firearms are reported stolen. They would merely be additional charges layered on for a plea agreement.

So go hard after the straw buyers and put them away for 20 years. Take away the incentive for anyone to want to help criminals.

If you’re having to show a Real ID, pass a background check, buy insurance, have to document your ammo purchases, etc. then people may think twice. And it would be easier to figure out who is buying them for others. Maybe even AI could be used to flag concerning applications.

The whole “insurance” idea is fake. Deliberate criminality as was the case in the incident that this thread is about cannot be insured. Mere negligence typically would be covered by, e.g., homeowner’s insurance and the like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This particular deranged murderer made a lot of noise and managed to kill (I think) just two people. The very list of knife events you reject demonstrates how quickly the body count can rise with a committed knife attacker. Bladed weapons were responsible for industrial-strength slaughter for millennia.

Besides the two dead, there were 17 injured including 14 children. Many of these (especially among those classified as being in critical condition) will likely be crippled for life.

Also note that the murderer shot at the children through the Church windows. This is something that could not be done with a knife. Yes, a committed knife attacker can kill multiple people, but it is much, much easier done with a gun.

+1

Also BFR. If you were shopping at Target with your kids and a crazy violent person came into the store, would you rather they have an AR-15 or a knife? … there is only one sane answer here

An ER doctor wrote an oped about the damage that an AR15 does to the body compared to a single shot pistol. He stated that most victims of one shot gun shot wounds can be saved, but the damage to a victim from an AR15 was basically like a blender came through the insides of the person.

There is no reason for an AR15, that's for sure.

The terminal ballistics of a 5.56 rifle bullet are relatively unpredictable and depend on, among other things, the weight and jacket material of the bullet, its design, the propellant used, and the length and twist rate of the barrel, as well as the range from which the wound is inflicted, and the build and clothing of the individual struck. Even when all else is equal, two different 5.56 wounds can vary from a small through and through wound to one with greater tissue destruction. The AR15 is popular but it is not the only firearm that uses 5.56 ammunition. And not all AR15’s use that round. The idea that a bullet wound is ever “like a blender came through a person” is simply ridiculous hyperbole.

Not hyperbole when it hits a child.

-RN

From your alleged sample size of?

I trust the experts more than some ammosexual anonymous poster.

"Instead of just being sort of point on straight through, there's more erratic passage of the bullet through the victim so the extent of tissue damage is greater," Shapiro explained.

What's more, assault weapons can cause a process called cavitation to occur, meaning it creates a large cavity in the body, destroying tissues and organs.

"The difference with high velocity bullets and military-grade weapons...is the damage they inflict on the human body and our internal organs are much more gruesome and tend to have what is known as a blast effect, because that bullet is carrying so much energy with it as it enters the human body," Griggs said. "Instead of, for example, if the bullet traveled through the lung, instead of a hole in the lung, we're looking at an exploded lung."

Griggs explained that the same holds true if a bullet hits a human bone. A bullet from a handgun that hits a bone might fracture the bone, but a bullet from a semi-automatic rifle might shatter the bone due to the high velocity.

"Children, their organs are a lot more compact, and they have a lot less fat surrounding their vital organs," Griggs said. "And so, you can imagine that a bullet that is causing a blast effect inside their body, inside their abdomen or their torso or their chest, it's not just going to explode, or tear apart, their lung, but also their heart. Not just going to completely shatter their liver, but also their spleen, causing catastrophic fatal bleeding."

"When we see a child who has been shot with an AR-15-style rifle, there is often very little hope -- depending on where the bullet has hit them in their body -- that we can save their life even if they make it to the hospital," she said. "And devastatingly, the children who were shot in Nashville were dead on arrival to the hospital. There's nothing that trauma surgery team could do and that is very classic of what we have come to see as the norm."

https://abc7.com/post/why-ar15-semi-automatic-weapons-dangerous/13051721/

You ammosexuals have a mental illness.

Name calling is so puerile, and the sure sign of insecure belief in a weak argument.

“Military grade” is another rhetorical buzzword without meaning.

The 5.56 cartridge was developed to hunt “varmints” like prairie dogs and only later adopted by the military.

Grandpa’s old hunting rifle very likely was chambered in a military cartridge and may even have been a “sporterixed” ex-military “weapon of war.”

Focuding on inanimate objects is a waste of time driven by magical thinking.

Yawn. Sorry but we still want a weapons ban.

Yawn. To quote Mick Jagger “you can’t always get what you want.”

Do you realize how absolutely despicable you sound on this thread? Are dead kids just collateral to you?

k

Do you realize how shrill and deranged you sound on this thread? Are the rights of millions of decent people just collateral to you as you leverage innocent murder victims to push magical “solutions” that have no possible chance of actually accomplishing anything?

Correct - some shrillness is the non-psychopathic response to the murder of children. The supposed “right” to bear arms is a suicidal perversion of the constitution and I look forward to it being corrected. The fact that you keep repeating that we think gun control is a “magical solution” to gun violence makes you sound not only like a psychopath but also stupid.

Name calling and personal attack. Drags down the discussion to primitive levels.

Wrong.

People who look away from the shooting of CHILDREN and act like the only solution is "thoughts and prayers" or worthless talk but zero meaningful and compassionate action about "mental illness" are the ones drag us down. People who call a normal reaction to shooting of children, the desire to make a real change to protect children, "shrill" and "deranged" in the name of keeping your guns are compensating for some real lack of decency. You are useless and without compassion.

The problem is that a paper “ban” on inanimate objects will accomplish nothing — as is amply demonstrated by many similar failures with other objects; any attempt at an enforced “ban” will never get political or social support; there is no possible way to remove firearms from circulation; if they are removed from circulation they will be replaced and in the process empower criminal cartels.

If you want “real change,” start by asking what happened between now and, say, the 1970’s, when students routinely took guns to school and nobody got shot — when actual military firearms that were the functional equivalent of AR15’s if not more powerful were sold by the millions as “surplus” and nobody got mowed down in droves.

Gun culture is weird, I agree, and largely concentrated in gun nut red areas. Yes how do we combat that bizarre, gun worshipping culture? I mean, putting your family and kids all holding giant guns on your Christmas card? Now that is definite weirdo US culture and some kind of mental illness specific to our country.

Puerile name calling, sloganeering and ranting — but bereft of a response to the question of what changed in the last 50 years or so about US culture and social values that sociopathic misconduct that once would have been unthinkable has now become commonplace?

The same forces that would lead adults to vote for Trump. Sociopathic. Once unthinkable is now commonplace. It's all tied together. The deplorable gun nuts wave their freak flags high and band together to destroy society.

It's not name calling. It's simply the truth. You want a fancier word for "nut" have at it, but it doesn't change the reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This particular deranged murderer made a lot of noise and managed to kill (I think) just two people. The very list of knife events you reject demonstrates how quickly the body count can rise with a committed knife attacker. Bladed weapons were responsible for industrial-strength slaughter for millennia.

Besides the two dead, there were 17 injured including 14 children. Many of these (especially among those classified as being in critical condition) will likely be crippled for life.

Also note that the murderer shot at the children through the Church windows. This is something that could not be done with a knife. Yes, a committed knife attacker can kill multiple people, but it is much, much easier done with a gun.

+1

Also BFR. If you were shopping at Target with your kids and a crazy violent person came into the store, would you rather they have an AR-15 or a knife? … there is only one sane answer here

An ER doctor wrote an oped about the damage that an AR15 does to the body compared to a single shot pistol. He stated that most victims of one shot gun shot wounds can be saved, but the damage to a victim from an AR15 was basically like a blender came through the insides of the person.

There is no reason for an AR15, that's for sure.

The terminal ballistics of a 5.56 rifle bullet are relatively unpredictable and depend on, among other things, the weight and jacket material of the bullet, its design, the propellant used, and the length and twist rate of the barrel, as well as the range from which the wound is inflicted, and the build and clothing of the individual struck. Even when all else is equal, two different 5.56 wounds can vary from a small through and through wound to one with greater tissue destruction. The AR15 is popular but it is not the only firearm that uses 5.56 ammunition. And not all AR15’s use that round. The idea that a bullet wound is ever “like a blender came through a person” is simply ridiculous hyperbole.

Not hyperbole when it hits a child.

-RN

From your alleged sample size of?

I trust the experts more than some ammosexual anonymous poster.

"Instead of just being sort of point on straight through, there's more erratic passage of the bullet through the victim so the extent of tissue damage is greater," Shapiro explained.

What's more, assault weapons can cause a process called cavitation to occur, meaning it creates a large cavity in the body, destroying tissues and organs.

"The difference with high velocity bullets and military-grade weapons...is the damage they inflict on the human body and our internal organs are much more gruesome and tend to have what is known as a blast effect, because that bullet is carrying so much energy with it as it enters the human body," Griggs said. "Instead of, for example, if the bullet traveled through the lung, instead of a hole in the lung, we're looking at an exploded lung."

Griggs explained that the same holds true if a bullet hits a human bone. A bullet from a handgun that hits a bone might fracture the bone, but a bullet from a semi-automatic rifle might shatter the bone due to the high velocity.

"Children, their organs are a lot more compact, and they have a lot less fat surrounding their vital organs," Griggs said. "And so, you can imagine that a bullet that is causing a blast effect inside their body, inside their abdomen or their torso or their chest, it's not just going to explode, or tear apart, their lung, but also their heart. Not just going to completely shatter their liver, but also their spleen, causing catastrophic fatal bleeding."

"When we see a child who has been shot with an AR-15-style rifle, there is often very little hope -- depending on where the bullet has hit them in their body -- that we can save their life even if they make it to the hospital," she said. "And devastatingly, the children who were shot in Nashville were dead on arrival to the hospital. There's nothing that trauma surgery team could do and that is very classic of what we have come to see as the norm."

https://abc7.com/post/why-ar15-semi-automatic-weapons-dangerous/13051721/

You ammosexuals have a mental illness.

Name calling is so puerile, and the sure sign of insecure belief in a weak argument.

“Military grade” is another rhetorical buzzword without meaning.

The 5.56 cartridge was developed to hunt “varmints” like prairie dogs and only later adopted by the military.

Grandpa’s old hunting rifle very likely was chambered in a military cartridge and may even have been a “sporterixed” ex-military “weapon of war.”

Focuding on inanimate objects is a waste of time driven by magical thinking.

Yawn. Sorry but we still want a weapons ban.

Yawn. To quote Mick Jagger “you can’t always get what you want.”

Do you realize how absolutely despicable you sound on this thread? Are dead kids just collateral to you?

k

Do you realize how shrill and deranged you sound on this thread? Are the rights of millions of decent people just collateral to you as you leverage innocent murder victims to push magical “solutions” that have no possible chance of actually accomplishing anything?

Correct - some shrillness is the non-psychopathic response to the murder of children. The supposed “right” to bear arms is a suicidal perversion of the constitution and I look forward to it being corrected. The fact that you keep repeating that we think gun control is a “magical solution” to gun violence makes you sound not only like a psychopath but also stupid.

Name calling and personal attack. Drags down the discussion to primitive levels.

Wrong.

People who look away from the shooting of CHILDREN and act like the only solution is "thoughts and prayers" or worthless talk but zero meaningful and compassionate action about "mental illness" are the ones drag us down. People who call a normal reaction to shooting of children, the desire to make a real change to protect children, "shrill" and "deranged" in the name of keeping your guns are compensating for some real lack of decency. You are useless and without compassion.

The problem is that a paper “ban” on inanimate objects will accomplish nothing — as is amply demonstrated by many similar failures with other objects; any attempt at an enforced “ban” will never get political or social support; there is no possible way to remove firearms from circulation; if they are removed from circulation they will be replaced and in the process empower criminal cartels.

If you want “real change,” start by asking what happened between now and, say, the 1970’s, when students routinely took guns to school and nobody got shot — when actual military firearms that were the functional equivalent of AR15’s if not more powerful were sold by the millions as “surplus” and nobody got mowed down in droves.

Well if we go back to the 1970s, we can invent all sorts of things. I pick PFAs and microplastics.

PS waiting periods are shown to reduce gun deaths by 17 percent. Small, still good enough for me when coupled with other restrictions

When was that? Was the alleged study controlled for people who already had access to firearms as the individual in this case reportedly did, and certainly did after he bought the first of the three weapons he misused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big Pharma is a big problem here not guns. Majority of these shooters are on SSRI’s or recently, puberty blockers. Nobody wants to call out the elephant in the room:
Big Pharma

It is insane to me how among the listed side effects for SSRIs - drugs given for severe depression - are suicidal thoughts and suicidal behavior! What are the point of these poisonous things???

It’s also dumb that teens can’t vape or smoke until 18 or drink till they’re 21 because alcohol is considered a mind altering drug yet they can take SSRI’s or completely change their gender with puberty blockers while underage.

Teens are already mentally not all the way there so imagine with medication

You can’t drink until 21 but you can buy a gun at 18.

Guns should require a safety class and test (like driving lessons) that come with a cost and parental and medical provider sign-off before anyone gets close to having the privilege to buy a gun.

This is the solution! A start. Banning firearms is the end goal, but this is what we do as soon as we have a real leader in the USA. Or even on state level in states with sensible lawmakers.

Why not just start with the end goal? Don’t you even care about all the people who will still die getting from your “start point” to the end goal? What about them? Don’t they matter? You’re willing to sacrifice them to incremental progress?

That’s F’d up.

Firearms cannot be banned. Not lawfully. Not practically. It is a reality-denying confabulation to insist on magical solutions while ignoring the root causes of psychopathy and criminal violence.

They actually can be banned but Republicans refuse to allow it.

“Banned” like illicit narcotics and all the other contraband in which the country is, and has long been, awash? There is a federal “ban” on marijuana. Illegitimate and unprescribed fentanyl is “banned” everywhere. We all know how that’s worked out.

Do you think we are idiots that don’t know other nations don’t have our gun violence issues?

“Gun violence” is a handy rhetorical buzzword for criminal misuse of firearms.

I didn’t call anybody any names. If somebody feels like they’re an idiot when the error of what purports to be their reasoning becomes evident, that feeling would be for them to examine.

Other nations, as has been repeatedly and exhaustively discussed in this and other threads, are not the same as the United States. There are places in the world where essentially every home has a fully automatic, machine gun, battle rifle, weapon of war, AK pattern rifle. They have plenty of internecine violence but nobody is shooting up schools.

It is delusional to believe that firearms can be magically “disappeared” from the United States, never to reappear. Continuing to posit that as a “solution” to unlawful criminal violence committed with firearms distracts from the real problem of criminal psychopaths and their psychopathic criminal misconduct.

In any event, the point of my post was that paper “bans” may briefly feel satisfying, but that there is a long way between what’s on paper and what’s actually happening in reality.

NP.

+1000

This post sums it up so well. So many societal problems far, far beyond shootings, could be addressed and helped if we took mental health as seriously as other countries do.

A good start is to bring back the in-patient mental hospitals to help the ones most in-need in our country. We never should have eliminated those facilities. Reform, yes, but not the wholesale closure which we implemented.

I agree with you we need to fix societal issues like better inpatient mental health treatment, but I disagree with the PP that gun reform means “paper bans.”

We need —

Gun buy backs. Offer financial incentives to get as many off the street as possible, no questions asked during a certain phase-in period.

Strict liability (e.g, someone else accesses your gun and shoots up a school or you leave it unattended so a toddler kills themself, this is some level of homicide). Make a big show of charging people as accessories to crimes so we can scare the crap out of people who aren’t keeping their guns secure. If you own a gun, you own the result of anyone harmed by it. If you are a responsible gun owner already taking precautions, you should have no problem with this. Only people who know they are careless will have anything to worry about. Exemptions for people who timely report stolen weapons.

Mandatory gun registration and requiring storage in a biometric safe when it’s not being carried on your person. This goes back to the strict liability above. Your gun is either on your person or in a safe. If you fail to do so, you accept civil and criminal liability for whatever happens with that gun. Intent for the result itself doesn’t matter (see felony murder rules in many states).

Failure to register a gun is a felony and make it easier for the government to confiscate guns from people who don’t have registration. This includes finding guns at traffic stops.

Mandatory insurance and tracking/limits regarding the amount of ammunition you can buy. If I can manage to show my ID to buy cold medicine, then people can show an ID to buy bullets, which kill people. Rates go up the more guns and ammo you buy.

Stricter enforcement of existing laws. No more “second chances” for people who commit gun crimes. A friend of mine was murdered by someone who had a prior gun charge that was pled down and had been let back out after just 2 years. I think if you commit a felony with a gun (robbery, assault, etc.) you get a mandatory minimum of 20 years.

Also, stop charging 16 and 17 year olds as juveniles. The vast majority of teens are not out shooting people so this isn’t simply dumb teenage behavior. At this point they’re old enough to understand their actions. They just don’t want the consequences.

Improvement in family courts and prosecution of domestic violence. Stop making parents hand their kids over for visits with nut jobs known to be violent.

Requirements for social media companies to use AI to flag manifestos and posts with guns. It’s absolutely infuriating that this Minn shooter uploaded looney tunes videos to YouTube and no one did a damn thing.

These are just off the top of my head. I’m sure as technology advances we can build on this.

Those are great solutions if you're talking about a law abiding population.

Most of those won't work once they get past straw buyers or the firearms are reported stolen. They would merely be additional charges layered on for a plea agreement.

So go hard after the straw buyers and put them away for 20 years. Take away the incentive for anyone to want to help criminals.

If you’re having to show a Real ID, pass a background check, buy insurance, have to document your ammo purchases, etc. then people may think twice. And it would be easier to figure out who is buying them for others. Maybe even AI could be used to flag concerning applications.

Straw purchases are predominantly done in red states per ATF tracing. Not always but disproportionately. Something about gun laws must work if criminals have to seek them out from the more lax states?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This particular deranged murderer made a lot of noise and managed to kill (I think) just two people. The very list of knife events you reject demonstrates how quickly the body count can rise with a committed knife attacker. Bladed weapons were responsible for industrial-strength slaughter for millennia.

Besides the two dead, there were 17 injured including 14 children. Many of these (especially among those classified as being in critical condition) will likely be crippled for life.

Also note that the murderer shot at the children through the Church windows. This is something that could not be done with a knife. Yes, a committed knife attacker can kill multiple people, but it is much, much easier done with a gun.

+1

Also BFR. If you were shopping at Target with your kids and a crazy violent person came into the store, would you rather they have an AR-15 or a knife? … there is only one sane answer here

An ER doctor wrote an oped about the damage that an AR15 does to the body compared to a single shot pistol. He stated that most victims of one shot gun shot wounds can be saved, but the damage to a victim from an AR15 was basically like a blender came through the insides of the person.

There is no reason for an AR15, that's for sure.

The terminal ballistics of a 5.56 rifle bullet are relatively unpredictable and depend on, among other things, the weight and jacket material of the bullet, its design, the propellant used, and the length and twist rate of the barrel, as well as the range from which the wound is inflicted, and the build and clothing of the individual struck. Even when all else is equal, two different 5.56 wounds can vary from a small through and through wound to one with greater tissue destruction. The AR15 is popular but it is not the only firearm that uses 5.56 ammunition. And not all AR15’s use that round. The idea that a bullet wound is ever “like a blender came through a person” is simply ridiculous hyperbole.

Not hyperbole when it hits a child.

-RN

From your alleged sample size of?

I trust the experts more than some ammosexual anonymous poster.

"Instead of just being sort of point on straight through, there's more erratic passage of the bullet through the victim so the extent of tissue damage is greater," Shapiro explained.

What's more, assault weapons can cause a process called cavitation to occur, meaning it creates a large cavity in the body, destroying tissues and organs.

"The difference with high velocity bullets and military-grade weapons...is the damage they inflict on the human body and our internal organs are much more gruesome and tend to have what is known as a blast effect, because that bullet is carrying so much energy with it as it enters the human body," Griggs said. "Instead of, for example, if the bullet traveled through the lung, instead of a hole in the lung, we're looking at an exploded lung."

Griggs explained that the same holds true if a bullet hits a human bone. A bullet from a handgun that hits a bone might fracture the bone, but a bullet from a semi-automatic rifle might shatter the bone due to the high velocity.

"Children, their organs are a lot more compact, and they have a lot less fat surrounding their vital organs," Griggs said. "And so, you can imagine that a bullet that is causing a blast effect inside their body, inside their abdomen or their torso or their chest, it's not just going to explode, or tear apart, their lung, but also their heart. Not just going to completely shatter their liver, but also their spleen, causing catastrophic fatal bleeding."

"When we see a child who has been shot with an AR-15-style rifle, there is often very little hope -- depending on where the bullet has hit them in their body -- that we can save their life even if they make it to the hospital," she said. "And devastatingly, the children who were shot in Nashville were dead on arrival to the hospital. There's nothing that trauma surgery team could do and that is very classic of what we have come to see as the norm."

https://abc7.com/post/why-ar15-semi-automatic-weapons-dangerous/13051721/

You ammosexuals have a mental illness.

Name calling is so puerile, and the sure sign of insecure belief in a weak argument.

“Military grade” is another rhetorical buzzword without meaning.

The 5.56 cartridge was developed to hunt “varmints” like prairie dogs and only later adopted by the military.

Grandpa’s old hunting rifle very likely was chambered in a military cartridge and may even have been a “sporterixed” ex-military “weapon of war.”

Focuding on inanimate objects is a waste of time driven by magical thinking.

Yawn. Sorry but we still want a weapons ban.

Yawn. To quote Mick Jagger “you can’t always get what you want.”

Do you realize how absolutely despicable you sound on this thread? Are dead kids just collateral to you?

k

Do you realize how shrill and deranged you sound on this thread? Are the rights of millions of decent people just collateral to you as you leverage innocent murder victims to push magical “solutions” that have no possible chance of actually accomplishing anything?

Correct - some shrillness is the non-psychopathic response to the murder of children. The supposed “right” to bear arms is a suicidal perversion of the constitution and I look forward to it being corrected. The fact that you keep repeating that we think gun control is a “magical solution” to gun violence makes you sound not only like a psychopath but also stupid.

Name calling and personal attack. Drags down the discussion to primitive levels.

Wrong.

People who look away from the shooting of CHILDREN and act like the only solution is "thoughts and prayers" or worthless talk but zero meaningful and compassionate action about "mental illness" are the ones drag us down. People who call a normal reaction to shooting of children, the desire to make a real change to protect children, "shrill" and "deranged" in the name of keeping your guns are compensating for some real lack of decency. You are useless and without compassion.

The problem is that a paper “ban” on inanimate objects will accomplish nothing — as is amply demonstrated by many similar failures with other objects; any attempt at an enforced “ban” will never get political or social support; there is no possible way to remove firearms from circulation; if they are removed from circulation they will be replaced and in the process empower criminal cartels.

If you want “real change,” start by asking what happened between now and, say, the 1970’s, when students routinely took guns to school and nobody got shot — when actual military firearms that were the functional equivalent of AR15’s if not more powerful were sold by the millions as “surplus” and nobody got mowed down in droves.

Well if we go back to the 1970s, we can invent all sorts of things. I pick PFAs and microplastics.

PS waiting periods are shown to reduce gun deaths by 17 percent. Small, still good enough for me when coupled with other restrictions

When was that? Was the alleged study controlled for people who already had access to firearms as the individual in this case reportedly did, and certainly did after he bought the first of the three weapons he misused.

Maybe before deciding all gun laws do not ever work, spend some time reading studies before you make that opinion?

Or just have opinions without data. Most of your arguments seem vague.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This particular deranged murderer made a lot of noise and managed to kill (I think) just two people. The very list of knife events you reject demonstrates how quickly the body count can rise with a committed knife attacker. Bladed weapons were responsible for industrial-strength slaughter for millennia.

Besides the two dead, there were 17 injured including 14 children. Many of these (especially among those classified as being in critical condition) will likely be crippled for life.

Also note that the murderer shot at the children through the Church windows. This is something that could not be done with a knife. Yes, a committed knife attacker can kill multiple people, but it is much, much easier done with a gun.

+1

Also BFR. If you were shopping at Target with your kids and a crazy violent person came into the store, would you rather they have an AR-15 or a knife? … there is only one sane answer here

An ER doctor wrote an oped about the damage that an AR15 does to the body compared to a single shot pistol. He stated that most victims of one shot gun shot wounds can be saved, but the damage to a victim from an AR15 was basically like a blender came through the insides of the person.

There is no reason for an AR15, that's for sure.

The terminal ballistics of a 5.56 rifle bullet are relatively unpredictable and depend on, among other things, the weight and jacket material of the bullet, its design, the propellant used, and the length and twist rate of the barrel, as well as the range from which the wound is inflicted, and the build and clothing of the individual struck. Even when all else is equal, two different 5.56 wounds can vary from a small through and through wound to one with greater tissue destruction. The AR15 is popular but it is not the only firearm that uses 5.56 ammunition. And not all AR15’s use that round. The idea that a bullet wound is ever “like a blender came through a person” is simply ridiculous hyperbole.

Not hyperbole when it hits a child.

-RN

From your alleged sample size of?

I trust the experts more than some ammosexual anonymous poster.

"Instead of just being sort of point on straight through, there's more erratic passage of the bullet through the victim so the extent of tissue damage is greater," Shapiro explained.

What's more, assault weapons can cause a process called cavitation to occur, meaning it creates a large cavity in the body, destroying tissues and organs.

"The difference with high velocity bullets and military-grade weapons...is the damage they inflict on the human body and our internal organs are much more gruesome and tend to have what is known as a blast effect, because that bullet is carrying so much energy with it as it enters the human body," Griggs said. "Instead of, for example, if the bullet traveled through the lung, instead of a hole in the lung, we're looking at an exploded lung."

Griggs explained that the same holds true if a bullet hits a human bone. A bullet from a handgun that hits a bone might fracture the bone, but a bullet from a semi-automatic rifle might shatter the bone due to the high velocity.

"Children, their organs are a lot more compact, and they have a lot less fat surrounding their vital organs," Griggs said. "And so, you can imagine that a bullet that is causing a blast effect inside their body, inside their abdomen or their torso or their chest, it's not just going to explode, or tear apart, their lung, but also their heart. Not just going to completely shatter their liver, but also their spleen, causing catastrophic fatal bleeding."

"When we see a child who has been shot with an AR-15-style rifle, there is often very little hope -- depending on where the bullet has hit them in their body -- that we can save their life even if they make it to the hospital," she said. "And devastatingly, the children who were shot in Nashville were dead on arrival to the hospital. There's nothing that trauma surgery team could do and that is very classic of what we have come to see as the norm."

https://abc7.com/post/why-ar15-semi-automatic-weapons-dangerous/13051721/

You ammosexuals have a mental illness.

Name calling is so puerile, and the sure sign of insecure belief in a weak argument.

“Military grade” is another rhetorical buzzword without meaning.

The 5.56 cartridge was developed to hunt “varmints” like prairie dogs and only later adopted by the military.

Grandpa’s old hunting rifle very likely was chambered in a military cartridge and may even have been a “sporterixed” ex-military “weapon of war.”

Focuding on inanimate objects is a waste of time driven by magical thinking.

Yawn. Sorry but we still want a weapons ban.

Yawn. To quote Mick Jagger “you can’t always get what you want.”

Do you realize how absolutely despicable you sound on this thread? Are dead kids just collateral to you?

k

Do you realize how shrill and deranged you sound on this thread? Are the rights of millions of decent people just collateral to you as you leverage innocent murder victims to push magical “solutions” that have no possible chance of actually accomplishing anything?

Correct - some shrillness is the non-psychopathic response to the murder of children. The supposed “right” to bear arms is a suicidal perversion of the constitution and I look forward to it being corrected. The fact that you keep repeating that we think gun control is a “magical solution” to gun violence makes you sound not only like a psychopath but also stupid.

Name calling and personal attack. Drags down the discussion to primitive levels.

Wrong.

People who look away from the shooting of CHILDREN and act like the only solution is "thoughts and prayers" or worthless talk but zero meaningful and compassionate action about "mental illness" are the ones drag us down. People who call a normal reaction to shooting of children, the desire to make a real change to protect children, "shrill" and "deranged" in the name of keeping your guns are compensating for some real lack of decency. You are useless and without compassion.

The problem is that a paper “ban” on inanimate objects will accomplish nothing — as is amply demonstrated by many similar failures with other objects; any attempt at an enforced “ban” will never get political or social support; there is no possible way to remove firearms from circulation; if they are removed from circulation they will be replaced and in the process empower criminal cartels.

If you want “real change,” start by asking what happened between now and, say, the 1970’s, when students routinely took guns to school and nobody got shot — when actual military firearms that were the functional equivalent of AR15’s if not more powerful were sold by the millions as “surplus” and nobody got mowed down in droves.

Well if we go back to the 1970s, we can invent all sorts of things. I pick PFAs and microplastics.

PS waiting periods are shown to reduce gun deaths by 17 percent. Small, still good enough for me when coupled with other restrictions

When was that? Was the alleged study controlled for people who already had access to firearms as the individual in this case reportedly did, and certainly did after he bought the first of the three weapons he misused.

Maybe before deciding all gun laws do not ever work, spend some time reading studies before you make that opinion?

Or just have opinions without data. Most of your arguments seem vague.

Google scholar is your friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big Pharma is a big problem here not guns. Majority of these shooters are on SSRI’s or recently, puberty blockers. Nobody wants to call out the elephant in the room:
Big Pharma

It is insane to me how among the listed side effects for SSRIs - drugs given for severe depression - are suicidal thoughts and suicidal behavior! What are the point of these poisonous things???

It’s also dumb that teens can’t vape or smoke until 18 or drink till they’re 21 because alcohol is considered a mind altering drug yet they can take SSRI’s or completely change their gender with puberty blockers while underage.

Teens are already mentally not all the way there so imagine with medication

You can’t drink until 21 but you can buy a gun at 18.

Guns should require a safety class and test (like driving lessons) that come with a cost and parental and medical provider sign-off before anyone gets close to having the privilege to buy a gun.

This is the solution! A start. Banning firearms is the end goal, but this is what we do as soon as we have a real leader in the USA. Or even on state level in states with sensible lawmakers.

Why not just start with the end goal? Don’t you even care about all the people who will still die getting from your “start point” to the end goal? What about them? Don’t they matter? You’re willing to sacrifice them to incremental progress?

That’s F’d up.

Firearms cannot be banned. Not lawfully. Not practically. It is a reality-denying confabulation to insist on magical solutions while ignoring the root causes of psychopathy and criminal violence.

They actually can be banned but Republicans refuse to allow it.

“Banned” like illicit narcotics and all the other contraband in which the country is, and has long been, awash? There is a federal “ban” on marijuana. Illegitimate and unprescribed fentanyl is “banned” everywhere. We all know how that’s worked out.

Do you think we are idiots that don’t know other nations don’t have our gun violence issues?

“Gun violence” is a handy rhetorical buzzword for criminal misuse of firearms.

I didn’t call anybody any names. If somebody feels like they’re an idiot when the error of what purports to be their reasoning becomes evident, that feeling would be for them to examine.

Other nations, as has been repeatedly and exhaustively discussed in this and other threads, are not the same as the United States. There are places in the world where essentially every home has a fully automatic, machine gun, battle rifle, weapon of war, AK pattern rifle. They have plenty of internecine violence but nobody is shooting up schools.

It is delusional to believe that firearms can be magically “disappeared” from the United States, never to reappear. Continuing to posit that as a “solution” to unlawful criminal violence committed with firearms distracts from the real problem of criminal psychopaths and their psychopathic criminal misconduct.

In any event, the point of my post was that paper “bans” may briefly feel satisfying, but that there is a long way between what’s on paper and what’s actually happening in reality.

NP.

+1000

This post sums it up so well. So many societal problems far, far beyond shootings, could be addressed and helped if we took mental health as seriously as other countries do.

A good start is to bring back the in-patient mental hospitals to help the ones most in-need in our country. We never should have eliminated those facilities. Reform, yes, but not the wholesale closure which we implemented.

I agree with you we need to fix societal issues like better inpatient mental health treatment, but I disagree with the PP that gun reform means “paper bans.”

We need —

Gun buy backs. Offer financial incentives to get as many off the street as possible, no questions asked during a certain phase-in period.

Strict liability (e.g, someone else accesses your gun and shoots up a school or you leave it unattended so a toddler kills themself, this is some level of homicide). Make a big show of charging people as accessories to crimes so we can scare the crap out of people who aren’t keeping their guns secure. If you own a gun, you own the result of anyone harmed by it. If you are a responsible gun owner already taking precautions, you should have no problem with this. Only people who know they are careless will have anything to worry about. Exemptions for people who timely report stolen weapons.

Mandatory gun registration and requiring storage in a biometric safe when it’s not being carried on your person. This goes back to the strict liability above. Your gun is either on your person or in a safe. If you fail to do so, you accept civil and criminal liability for whatever happens with that gun. Intent for the result itself doesn’t matter (see felony murder rules in many states).

Failure to register a gun is a felony and make it easier for the government to confiscate guns from people who don’t have registration. This includes finding guns at traffic stops.

Mandatory insurance and tracking/limits regarding the amount of ammunition you can buy. If I can manage to show my ID to buy cold medicine, then people can show an ID to buy bullets, which kill people. Rates go up the more guns and ammo you buy.

Stricter enforcement of existing laws. No more “second chances” for people who commit gun crimes. A friend of mine was murdered by someone who had a prior gun charge that was pled down and had been let back out after just 2 years. I think if you commit a felony with a gun (robbery, assault, etc.) you get a mandatory minimum of 20 years.

Also, stop charging 16 and 17 year olds as juveniles. The vast majority of teens are not out shooting people so this isn’t simply dumb teenage behavior. At this point they’re old enough to understand their actions. They just don’t want the consequences.

Improvement in family courts and prosecution of domestic violence. Stop making parents hand their kids over for visits with nut jobs known to be violent.

Requirements for social media companies to use AI to flag manifestos and posts with guns. It’s absolutely infuriating that this Minn shooter uploaded looney tunes videos to YouTube and no one did a damn thing.

These are just off the top of my head. I’m sure as technology advances we can build on this.

Those are great solutions if you're talking about a law abiding population.

Most of those won't work once they get past straw buyers or the firearms are reported stolen. They would merely be additional charges layered on for a plea agreement.

So go hard after the straw buyers and put them away for 20 years. Take away the incentive for anyone to want to help criminals.

If you’re having to show a Real ID, pass a background check, buy insurance, have to document your ammo purchases, etc. then people may think twice. And it would be easier to figure out who is buying them for others. Maybe even AI could be used to flag concerning applications.

Straw purchases are predominantly done in red states per ATF tracing. Not always but disproportionately. Something about gun laws must work if criminals have to seek them out from the more lax states?

Heroin used to be sold over the counter. Not anymore but it’s still around. Commerce in the forbidden is profitable.

Straw purchases are already unlawful — “banned” — why are they still happening if laws are so effective in and of themselves?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This particular deranged murderer made a lot of noise and managed to kill (I think) just two people. The very list of knife events you reject demonstrates how quickly the body count can rise with a committed knife attacker. Bladed weapons were responsible for industrial-strength slaughter for millennia.

Besides the two dead, there were 17 injured including 14 children. Many of these (especially among those classified as being in critical condition) will likely be crippled for life.

Also note that the murderer shot at the children through the Church windows. This is something that could not be done with a knife. Yes, a committed knife attacker can kill multiple people, but it is much, much easier done with a gun.

+1

Also BFR. If you were shopping at Target with your kids and a crazy violent person came into the store, would you rather they have an AR-15 or a knife? … there is only one sane answer here

An ER doctor wrote an oped about the damage that an AR15 does to the body compared to a single shot pistol. He stated that most victims of one shot gun shot wounds can be saved, but the damage to a victim from an AR15 was basically like a blender came through the insides of the person.

There is no reason for an AR15, that's for sure.

The terminal ballistics of a 5.56 rifle bullet are relatively unpredictable and depend on, among other things, the weight and jacket material of the bullet, its design, the propellant used, and the length and twist rate of the barrel, as well as the range from which the wound is inflicted, and the build and clothing of the individual struck. Even when all else is equal, two different 5.56 wounds can vary from a small through and through wound to one with greater tissue destruction. The AR15 is popular but it is not the only firearm that uses 5.56 ammunition. And not all AR15’s use that round. The idea that a bullet wound is ever “like a blender came through a person” is simply ridiculous hyperbole.

Not hyperbole when it hits a child.

-RN

From your alleged sample size of?

I trust the experts more than some ammosexual anonymous poster.

"Instead of just being sort of point on straight through, there's more erratic passage of the bullet through the victim so the extent of tissue damage is greater," Shapiro explained.

What's more, assault weapons can cause a process called cavitation to occur, meaning it creates a large cavity in the body, destroying tissues and organs.

"The difference with high velocity bullets and military-grade weapons...is the damage they inflict on the human body and our internal organs are much more gruesome and tend to have what is known as a blast effect, because that bullet is carrying so much energy with it as it enters the human body," Griggs said. "Instead of, for example, if the bullet traveled through the lung, instead of a hole in the lung, we're looking at an exploded lung."

Griggs explained that the same holds true if a bullet hits a human bone. A bullet from a handgun that hits a bone might fracture the bone, but a bullet from a semi-automatic rifle might shatter the bone due to the high velocity.

"Children, their organs are a lot more compact, and they have a lot less fat surrounding their vital organs," Griggs said. "And so, you can imagine that a bullet that is causing a blast effect inside their body, inside their abdomen or their torso or their chest, it's not just going to explode, or tear apart, their lung, but also their heart. Not just going to completely shatter their liver, but also their spleen, causing catastrophic fatal bleeding."

"When we see a child who has been shot with an AR-15-style rifle, there is often very little hope -- depending on where the bullet has hit them in their body -- that we can save their life even if they make it to the hospital," she said. "And devastatingly, the children who were shot in Nashville were dead on arrival to the hospital. There's nothing that trauma surgery team could do and that is very classic of what we have come to see as the norm."

https://abc7.com/post/why-ar15-semi-automatic-weapons-dangerous/13051721/

You ammosexuals have a mental illness.

There are probably a thousand different models of rifles that shoot the exact same bullet as an AR15. I cannot understand this fetish-like fixation some of you seem to have with this particular gun. Can any of you explain it?

DP, but that makes it even easier. Just outlaw this type of bullet. It’s not good for hunting because it will destroy the meat. There’s less destructive means for self defense. If there is some sort of rationale for needing a bullet that can pulverize children’s’ organs then people can apply for an exception with clear proof of their intent to use them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big Pharma is a big problem here not guns. Majority of these shooters are on SSRI’s or recently, puberty blockers. Nobody wants to call out the elephant in the room:
Big Pharma

It is insane to me how among the listed side effects for SSRIs - drugs given for severe depression - are suicidal thoughts and suicidal behavior! What are the point of these poisonous things???

It’s also dumb that teens can’t vape or smoke until 18 or drink till they’re 21 because alcohol is considered a mind altering drug yet they can take SSRI’s or completely change their gender with puberty blockers while underage.

Teens are already mentally not all the way there so imagine with medication

You can’t drink until 21 but you can buy a gun at 18.

Guns should require a safety class and test (like driving lessons) that come with a cost and parental and medical provider sign-off before anyone gets close to having the privilege to buy a gun.

This is the solution! A start. Banning firearms is the end goal, but this is what we do as soon as we have a real leader in the USA. Or even on state level in states with sensible lawmakers.

Why not just start with the end goal? Don’t you even care about all the people who will still die getting from your “start point” to the end goal? What about them? Don’t they matter? You’re willing to sacrifice them to incremental progress?

That’s F’d up.

Firearms cannot be banned. Not lawfully. Not practically. It is a reality-denying confabulation to insist on magical solutions while ignoring the root causes of psychopathy and criminal violence.

They actually can be banned but Republicans refuse to allow it.

“Banned” like illicit narcotics and all the other contraband in which the country is, and has long been, awash? There is a federal “ban” on marijuana. Illegitimate and unprescribed fentanyl is “banned” everywhere. We all know how that’s worked out.

Do you think we are idiots that don’t know other nations don’t have our gun violence issues?

“Gun violence” is a handy rhetorical buzzword for criminal misuse of firearms.

I didn’t call anybody any names. If somebody feels like they’re an idiot when the error of what purports to be their reasoning becomes evident, that feeling would be for them to examine.

Other nations, as has been repeatedly and exhaustively discussed in this and other threads, are not the same as the United States. There are places in the world where essentially every home has a fully automatic, machine gun, battle rifle, weapon of war, AK pattern rifle. They have plenty of internecine violence but nobody is shooting up schools.

It is delusional to believe that firearms can be magically “disappeared” from the United States, never to reappear. Continuing to posit that as a “solution” to unlawful criminal violence committed with firearms distracts from the real problem of criminal psychopaths and their psychopathic criminal misconduct.

In any event, the point of my post was that paper “bans” may briefly feel satisfying, but that there is a long way between what’s on paper and what’s actually happening in reality.

NP.

+1000

This post sums it up so well. So many societal problems far, far beyond shootings, could be addressed and helped if we took mental health as seriously as other countries do.

A good start is to bring back the in-patient mental hospitals to help the ones most in-need in our country. We never should have eliminated those facilities. Reform, yes, but not the wholesale closure which we implemented.

I agree with you we need to fix societal issues like better inpatient mental health treatment, but I disagree with the PP that gun reform means “paper bans.”

We need —

Gun buy backs. Offer financial incentives to get as many off the street as possible, no questions asked during a certain phase-in period.

Strict liability (e.g, someone else accesses your gun and shoots up a school or you leave it unattended so a toddler kills themself, this is some level of homicide). Make a big show of charging people as accessories to crimes so we can scare the crap out of people who aren’t keeping their guns secure. If you own a gun, you own the result of anyone harmed by it. If you are a responsible gun owner already taking precautions, you should have no problem with this. Only people who know they are careless will have anything to worry about. Exemptions for people who timely report stolen weapons.

Mandatory gun registration and requiring storage in a biometric safe when it’s not being carried on your person. This goes back to the strict liability above. Your gun is either on your person or in a safe. If you fail to do so, you accept civil and criminal liability for whatever happens with that gun. Intent for the result itself doesn’t matter (see felony murder rules in many states).

Failure to register a gun is a felony and make it easier for the government to confiscate guns from people who don’t have registration. This includes finding guns at traffic stops.

Mandatory insurance and tracking/limits regarding the amount of ammunition you can buy. If I can manage to show my ID to buy cold medicine, then people can show an ID to buy bullets, which kill people. Rates go up the more guns and ammo you buy.

Stricter enforcement of existing laws. No more “second chances” for people who commit gun crimes. A friend of mine was murdered by someone who had a prior gun charge that was pled down and had been let back out after just 2 years. I think if you commit a felony with a gun (robbery, assault, etc.) you get a mandatory minimum of 20 years.

Also, stop charging 16 and 17 year olds as juveniles. The vast majority of teens are not out shooting people so this isn’t simply dumb teenage behavior. At this point they’re old enough to understand their actions. They just don’t want the consequences.

Improvement in family courts and prosecution of domestic violence. Stop making parents hand their kids over for visits with nut jobs known to be violent.

Requirements for social media companies to use AI to flag manifestos and posts with guns. It’s absolutely infuriating that this Minn shooter uploaded looney tunes videos to YouTube and no one did a damn thing.

These are just off the top of my head. I’m sure as technology advances we can build on this.

Those are great solutions if you're talking about a law abiding population.

Most of those won't work once they get past straw buyers or the firearms are reported stolen. They would merely be additional charges layered on for a plea agreement.

So go hard after the straw buyers and put them away for 20 years. Take away the incentive for anyone to want to help criminals.

If you’re having to show a Real ID, pass a background check, buy insurance, have to document your ammo purchases, etc. then people may think twice. And it would be easier to figure out who is buying them for others. Maybe even AI could be used to flag concerning applications.

Straw purchases are predominantly done in red states per ATF tracing. Not always but disproportionately. Something about gun laws must work if criminals have to seek them out from the more lax states?

Heroin used to be sold over the counter. Not anymore but it’s still around. Commerce in the forbidden is profitable.

Straw purchases are already unlawful — “banned” — why are they still happening if laws are so effective in and of themselves?

Because specific states make it easier. Obviously. If straw purchase laws did not work at all, straw purchase rates would be similar across states. But purchases heavily tend to be in red states. Chicago criminals would source their guns locally, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This particular deranged murderer made a lot of noise and managed to kill (I think) just two people. The very list of knife events you reject demonstrates how quickly the body count can rise with a committed knife attacker. Bladed weapons were responsible for industrial-strength slaughter for millennia.

Besides the two dead, there were 17 injured including 14 children. Many of these (especially among those classified as being in critical condition) will likely be crippled for life.

Also note that the murderer shot at the children through the Church windows. This is something that could not be done with a knife. Yes, a committed knife attacker can kill multiple people, but it is much, much easier done with a gun.

+1

Also BFR. If you were shopping at Target with your kids and a crazy violent person came into the store, would you rather they have an AR-15 or a knife? … there is only one sane answer here

An ER doctor wrote an oped about the damage that an AR15 does to the body compared to a single shot pistol. He stated that most victims of one shot gun shot wounds can be saved, but the damage to a victim from an AR15 was basically like a blender came through the insides of the person.

There is no reason for an AR15, that's for sure.

The terminal ballistics of a 5.56 rifle bullet are relatively unpredictable and depend on, among other things, the weight and jacket material of the bullet, its design, the propellant used, and the length and twist rate of the barrel, as well as the range from which the wound is inflicted, and the build and clothing of the individual struck. Even when all else is equal, two different 5.56 wounds can vary from a small through and through wound to one with greater tissue destruction. The AR15 is popular but it is not the only firearm that uses 5.56 ammunition. And not all AR15’s use that round. The idea that a bullet wound is ever “like a blender came through a person” is simply ridiculous hyperbole.

Not hyperbole when it hits a child.

-RN

From your alleged sample size of?

I trust the experts more than some ammosexual anonymous poster.

"Instead of just being sort of point on straight through, there's more erratic passage of the bullet through the victim so the extent of tissue damage is greater," Shapiro explained.

What's more, assault weapons can cause a process called cavitation to occur, meaning it creates a large cavity in the body, destroying tissues and organs.

"The difference with high velocity bullets and military-grade weapons...is the damage they inflict on the human body and our internal organs are much more gruesome and tend to have what is known as a blast effect, because that bullet is carrying so much energy with it as it enters the human body," Griggs said. "Instead of, for example, if the bullet traveled through the lung, instead of a hole in the lung, we're looking at an exploded lung."

Griggs explained that the same holds true if a bullet hits a human bone. A bullet from a handgun that hits a bone might fracture the bone, but a bullet from a semi-automatic rifle might shatter the bone due to the high velocity.

"Children, their organs are a lot more compact, and they have a lot less fat surrounding their vital organs," Griggs said. "And so, you can imagine that a bullet that is causing a blast effect inside their body, inside their abdomen or their torso or their chest, it's not just going to explode, or tear apart, their lung, but also their heart. Not just going to completely shatter their liver, but also their spleen, causing catastrophic fatal bleeding."

"When we see a child who has been shot with an AR-15-style rifle, there is often very little hope -- depending on where the bullet has hit them in their body -- that we can save their life even if they make it to the hospital," she said. "And devastatingly, the children who were shot in Nashville were dead on arrival to the hospital. There's nothing that trauma surgery team could do and that is very classic of what we have come to see as the norm."

https://abc7.com/post/why-ar15-semi-automatic-weapons-dangerous/13051721/

You ammosexuals have a mental illness.

Name calling is so puerile, and the sure sign of insecure belief in a weak argument.

“Military grade” is another rhetorical buzzword without meaning.

The 5.56 cartridge was developed to hunt “varmints” like prairie dogs and only later adopted by the military.

Grandpa’s old hunting rifle very likely was chambered in a military cartridge and may even have been a “sporterixed” ex-military “weapon of war.”

Focuding on inanimate objects is a waste of time driven by magical thinking.

Yawn. Sorry but we still want a weapons ban.

Yawn. To quote Mick Jagger “you can’t always get what you want.”

Do you realize how absolutely despicable you sound on this thread? Are dead kids just collateral to you?

k

Do you realize how shrill and deranged you sound on this thread? Are the rights of millions of decent people just collateral to you as you leverage innocent murder victims to push magical “solutions” that have no possible chance of actually accomplishing anything?

Correct - some shrillness is the non-psychopathic response to the murder of children. The supposed “right” to bear arms is a suicidal perversion of the constitution and I look forward to it being corrected. The fact that you keep repeating that we think gun control is a “magical solution” to gun violence makes you sound not only like a psychopath but also stupid.

Name calling and personal attack. Drags down the discussion to primitive levels.

Wrong.

People who look away from the shooting of CHILDREN and act like the only solution is "thoughts and prayers" or worthless talk but zero meaningful and compassionate action about "mental illness" are the ones drag us down. People who call a normal reaction to shooting of children, the desire to make a real change to protect children, "shrill" and "deranged" in the name of keeping your guns are compensating for some real lack of decency. You are useless and without compassion.

The problem is that a paper “ban” on inanimate objects will accomplish nothing — as is amply demonstrated by many similar failures with other objects; any attempt at an enforced “ban” will never get political or social support; there is no possible way to remove firearms from circulation; if they are removed from circulation they will be replaced and in the process empower criminal cartels.

If you want “real change,” start by asking what happened between now and, say, the 1970’s, when students routinely took guns to school and nobody got shot — when actual military firearms that were the functional equivalent of AR15’s if not more powerful were sold by the millions as “surplus” and nobody got mowed down in droves.

Well if we go back to the 1970s, we can invent all sorts of things. I pick PFAs and microplastics.

PS waiting periods are shown to reduce gun deaths by 17 percent. Small, still good enough for me when coupled with other restrictions

When was that? Was the alleged study controlled for people who already had access to firearms as the individual in this case reportedly did, and certainly did after he bought the first of the three weapons he misused.

Maybe before deciding all gun laws do not ever work, spend some time reading studies before you make that opinion?

Or just have opinions without data. Most of your arguments seem vague.

No, what’s “vague” is the assertion of a study allegedly showing that waiting periods reduced crime without any citation to the claimed study. I’d be happy to look at it, if only to answer my question about how well-controlled it was (if at all).

I’ve read lots of studies, including the ones nobody on DCUM wants to hear about, showing that lawfully owned firearms are used tens to hundreds of thousands of times a year to stop criminal assault, typically without a shot being fired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This particular deranged murderer made a lot of noise and managed to kill (I think) just two people. The very list of knife events you reject demonstrates how quickly the body count can rise with a committed knife attacker. Bladed weapons were responsible for industrial-strength slaughter for millennia.

Besides the two dead, there were 17 injured including 14 children. Many of these (especially among those classified as being in critical condition) will likely be crippled for life.

Also note that the murderer shot at the children through the Church windows. This is something that could not be done with a knife. Yes, a committed knife attacker can kill multiple people, but it is much, much easier done with a gun.

+1

Also BFR. If you were shopping at Target with your kids and a crazy violent person came into the store, would you rather they have an AR-15 or a knife? … there is only one sane answer here

An ER doctor wrote an oped about the damage that an AR15 does to the body compared to a single shot pistol. He stated that most victims of one shot gun shot wounds can be saved, but the damage to a victim from an AR15 was basically like a blender came through the insides of the person.

There is no reason for an AR15, that's for sure.

The terminal ballistics of a 5.56 rifle bullet are relatively unpredictable and depend on, among other things, the weight and jacket material of the bullet, its design, the propellant used, and the length and twist rate of the barrel, as well as the range from which the wound is inflicted, and the build and clothing of the individual struck. Even when all else is equal, two different 5.56 wounds can vary from a small through and through wound to one with greater tissue destruction. The AR15 is popular but it is not the only firearm that uses 5.56 ammunition. And not all AR15’s use that round. The idea that a bullet wound is ever “like a blender came through a person” is simply ridiculous hyperbole.

Not hyperbole when it hits a child.

-RN

From your alleged sample size of?

I trust the experts more than some ammosexual anonymous poster.

"Instead of just being sort of point on straight through, there's more erratic passage of the bullet through the victim so the extent of tissue damage is greater," Shapiro explained.

What's more, assault weapons can cause a process called cavitation to occur, meaning it creates a large cavity in the body, destroying tissues and organs.

"The difference with high velocity bullets and military-grade weapons...is the damage they inflict on the human body and our internal organs are much more gruesome and tend to have what is known as a blast effect, because that bullet is carrying so much energy with it as it enters the human body," Griggs said. "Instead of, for example, if the bullet traveled through the lung, instead of a hole in the lung, we're looking at an exploded lung."

Griggs explained that the same holds true if a bullet hits a human bone. A bullet from a handgun that hits a bone might fracture the bone, but a bullet from a semi-automatic rifle might shatter the bone due to the high velocity.

"Children, their organs are a lot more compact, and they have a lot less fat surrounding their vital organs," Griggs said. "And so, you can imagine that a bullet that is causing a blast effect inside their body, inside their abdomen or their torso or their chest, it's not just going to explode, or tear apart, their lung, but also their heart. Not just going to completely shatter their liver, but also their spleen, causing catastrophic fatal bleeding."

"When we see a child who has been shot with an AR-15-style rifle, there is often very little hope -- depending on where the bullet has hit them in their body -- that we can save their life even if they make it to the hospital," she said. "And devastatingly, the children who were shot in Nashville were dead on arrival to the hospital. There's nothing that trauma surgery team could do and that is very classic of what we have come to see as the norm."

https://abc7.com/post/why-ar15-semi-automatic-weapons-dangerous/13051721/

You ammosexuals have a mental illness.

There are probably a thousand different models of rifles that shoot the exact same bullet as an AR15. I cannot understand this fetish-like fixation some of you seem to have with this particular gun. Can any of you explain it?

DP, but that makes it even easier. Just outlaw this type of bullet. It’s not good for hunting because it will destroy the meat. There’s less destructive means for self defense. If there is some sort of rationale for needing a bullet that can pulverize children’s’ organs then people can apply for an exception with clear proof of their intent to use them.

This person does not believe in research, only their own preconceived notions. They stated earlier that it was not true that different guns/bullets wouldn't do different damage to a child whereas a trauma surgeon would disagree (I have actually watched a republican trauma surgeon talk about the differences of guns/bullet impact with graphic images though not of children).