20 victims reported at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis

[Anonymous]

There needs to be stricter internet control. There is a reason Silicon Valley parents don’t let their kids have online access. They prefer to send them to Montessori schools where they play with wooden toys. There was an article in the NYT where Steve above was asked how much his kids loved iPads. He replied “they haven’t used one.” In China phones used by minors have to be registered using real names and id’s.

Right now the horrific shooters manifesto is being spread online. So some other horrifically evil and disturbed individual is reading it amd potentially thinking about the next attacker. That manifesto should be censored online as well as any details about the planning and execution of any mass shooting.

[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 type of bullet” is typically a full metal jacketed spitzer projectile that is virtually universal across rifle types and calibers.

[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:

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.

Lott research enthusiast, knew it. Per metaanalysis, weak/poor research supports his "good guy with a gun* hypothesis, better/stronger research doesn't.

https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Gun-Crime-Methodological-Review-of-the-Evidence.pdf

[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: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.

So laws making certain actions (“straw purchases”) unlawful only work if there are other laws making it unlawful to lie when making such purchases — oh, wait, that’s unlawful too — or something else to make the already-a-crime “more illegal-er?”

Has anybody tried prosecuting on every single count the straw purchasers who get caught? In a recent MD case I recall the defendant being allowed to skate on the majority of charges.

[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:
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.

Typical response, touting technical gun details. Not that PP, but you absolutely know more than me about technical gun specifics. Gold star for that.

Now stop with the distraction and deflection and focus on the actual issues at hand. Research shows that restrictive gun law states have lower pediatric gun deaths. There is plenty of published research on this or that impact of gun control laws within 2a. But I may surmise that you only cherry pick the highly disputed good guy with a gun research of Locke and ignore anything that contradicts it?

Can we prevent every child from being murdered or accidentally shooting themself or committing suicide? No. Can we reduce it statistically? Yes. Is that worth it to me, a mother? YES. Is it worth it to you? Apparently not.

Do not tell me about mental illness or video games or whatever that many other countries in the world have, because that argument is BS.

Ever comforted someone who attended a funeral of a child who died in a school shooting and talked about how tiny the casket was? I have.

Stop with the technical detail to brag about your gun knowledge. It does not matter.

You have posted the same mantra about “strict” states with miraculously lower death rates multiple times, but have tellingly failed, refused or been unable to provide any underlying information that might undercut the post hoc reasoning that attributes the alleged better crime statistics solely to the difference in firearm laws.

That underlying information matters. A jurisdiction with extremely severe drunk driving laws might have less drunk driving because of those laws. Or it may be overpopulated with Mormons, Southern Baptists and other teetotalers; or the police may not like enforcing what they perceive to be unfair laws.

Your arguments mix accidental shooting deaths into the present discussion of willful, malicious, hateful murderers by a despicable and clearly floridly mentally ill person. Well, there are already laws against criminal negligence, and every shot the shooter in this case fired violated multiple laws.

You wish to foreclose discussion of the various social forces that contribute to criminal violence in the United States, arguing that other countries have crazy people too so it must be the evil scary looking guns. No country in the world is as mixed or media driven as the US and unfortunately there may be no country with an equal level of social isolation for people who need help.

Technical issues matter a great deal when discussing whether, how and to what extent to attempt to abridge the rights of decent people in a doomed effort to stop crime by focusing on one type or model of firearm as a magical totem, the eradication of which will somehow miraculously bring peace and tranquility everywhere. You may not know, and many people on your side of the fence may not know, and you may not care — you may even be in favor — but trying to “ban” firearms based on cosmetic appearances, action type or caliber will impact far beyond the specific “totem” models you have in mind.

What this means in real terms is that attempted “bans” will either be eyewash or ineffective. They will face enormous levels of noncompliance. They will open the door to actual “military grade weapons of war” brought in by profiteering black marketeers.

Don’t believe me? Before 1968, most criminals (and a lot of decent people) were armed with inexpensive, soft metal, low power, unreliable firearms imported and sold at rock bottom prices — so called “Saturday Night Specials.” After the Gun Control Act of 1968 stopped those from coming in, domestic manufacturers filled the void and criminals now routinely are at least as well armed as the police.

The percentage of firearms ever misused is infinitesimal in comparison to the millions of lawfully owned guns in the country. Solving behavioral problems by magical thinking and impossible measures never works.

What works is taking criminals out of circulation.

What garbage. Guns kill period end of story. This does not happen in countries with gun control.

Again, and I’m sorry it conflicts with your deeply held simplistic belief that inanimate objects cause crime by themselves — there are highly material geographic, population, demographic, social and especially cultural differences that go well beyond firearm laws when comparing other places to the US.

JFC people like you are so disingenuous. No one has ever said guns by themselves kill people. It’s the crazy people being able to easily access guns that kills people. We need to limit access, some people don’t want to even try to lower the leading cause of death of children because *God Forbid* they have to fill out paperwork or survive through a waiting period or accept stricter liability for not letting an object designed to cause harm to cause harm to innocent people.

If you are a law abiding and responsible gun owner, then what the heck is the worst case for you? You don’t like paperwork or insurance, so we should just keep the status quo every time some elementary kids get slaughtered in their classroom. People like you are the real victims in all this!

[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:

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.

Lott research enthusiast, knew it. Per metaanalysis, weak/poor research supports his "good guy with a gun* hypothesis, better/stronger research doesn't.

https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Gun-Crime-Methodological-Review-of-the-Evidence.pdf

Lott is not the only such study.

And I’m still waiting for the waiting period link? Is there a waiting period for that?

[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:

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.

Lott research enthusiast, knew it. Per metaanalysis, weak/poor research supports his "good guy with a gun* hypothesis, better/stronger research doesn't.

https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Gun-Crime-Methodological-Review-of-the-Evidence.pdf

Lott is not the only such study.

And I’m still waiting for the waiting period link? Is there a waiting period for that?

Yes, that was a meta analysis above, yes?

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1619896114

[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:
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.

Typical response, touting technical gun details. Not that PP, but you absolutely know more than me about technical gun specifics. Gold star for that.

Now stop with the distraction and deflection and focus on the actual issues at hand. Research shows that restrictive gun law states have lower pediatric gun deaths. There is plenty of published research on this or that impact of gun control laws within 2a. But I may surmise that you only cherry pick the highly disputed good guy with a gun research of Locke and ignore anything that contradicts it?

Can we prevent every child from being murdered or accidentally shooting themself or committing suicide? No. Can we reduce it statistically? Yes. Is that worth it to me, a mother? YES. Is it worth it to you? Apparently not.

Do not tell me about mental illness or video games or whatever that many other countries in the world have, because that argument is BS.

Ever comforted someone who attended a funeral of a child who died in a school shooting and talked about how tiny the casket was? I have.

Stop with the technical detail to brag about your gun knowledge. It does not matter.

You have posted the same mantra about “strict” states with miraculously lower death rates multiple times, but have tellingly failed, refused or been unable to provide any underlying information that might undercut the post hoc reasoning that attributes the alleged better crime statistics solely to the difference in firearm laws.

That underlying information matters. A jurisdiction with extremely severe drunk driving laws might have less drunk driving because of those laws. Or it may be overpopulated with Mormons, Southern Baptists and other teetotalers; or the police may not like enforcing what they perceive to be unfair laws.

Your arguments mix accidental shooting deaths into the present discussion of willful, malicious, hateful murderers by a despicable and clearly floridly mentally ill person. Well, there are already laws against criminal negligence, and every shot the shooter in this case fired violated multiple laws.

You wish to foreclose discussion of the various social forces that contribute to criminal violence in the United States, arguing that other countries have crazy people too so it must be the evil scary looking guns. No country in the world is as mixed or media driven as the US and unfortunately there may be no country with an equal level of social isolation for people who need help.

Technical issues matter a great deal when discussing whether, how and to what extent to attempt to abridge the rights of decent people in a doomed effort to stop crime by focusing on one type or model of firearm as a magical totem, the eradication of which will somehow miraculously bring peace and tranquility everywhere. You may not know, and many people on your side of the fence may not know, and you may not care — you may even be in favor — but trying to “ban” firearms based on cosmetic appearances, action type or caliber will impact far beyond the specific “totem” models you have in mind.

What this means in real terms is that attempted “bans” will either be eyewash or ineffective. They will face enormous levels of noncompliance. They will open the door to actual “military grade weapons of war” brought in by profiteering black marketeers.

Don’t believe me? Before 1968, most criminals (and a lot of decent people) were armed with inexpensive, soft metal, low power, unreliable firearms imported and sold at rock bottom prices — so called “Saturday Night Specials.” After the Gun Control Act of 1968 stopped those from coming in, domestic manufacturers filled the void and criminals now routinely are at least as well armed as the police.

The percentage of firearms ever misused is infinitesimal in comparison to the millions of lawfully owned guns in the country. Solving behavioral problems by magical thinking and impossible measures never works.

What works is taking criminals out of circulation.

What garbage. Guns kill period end of story. This does not happen in countries with gun control.

Again, and I’m sorry it conflicts with your deeply held simplistic belief that inanimate objects cause crime by themselves — there are highly material geographic, population, demographic, social and especially cultural differences that go well beyond firearm laws when comparing other places to the US.

JFC people like you are so disingenuous. No one has ever said guns by themselves kill people. It’s the crazy people being able to easily access guns that kills people. We need to limit access, some people don’t want to even try to lower the leading cause of death of children because *God Forbid* they have to fill out paperwork or survive through a waiting period or accept stricter liability for not letting an object designed to cause harm to cause harm to innocent people.

If you are a law abiding and responsible gun owner, then what the heck is the worst case for you? You don’t like paperwork or insurance, so we should just keep the status quo every time some elementary kids get slaughtered in their classroom. People like you are the real victims in all this!

Law abiding and responsible gun owners are not committing these crimes, criminal psychopaths are.

Guns are not “easy to access.” They are among the most heavily regulated commodities in existence. There already is a ton of “paperwork” like the paperwork that allowed authorities to trade almost immediately the source of the guns in the case being discussed here. The conceit of insurance that would cover intentional crimes is silly. Waiting periods are meaningless, particularly once a person already has one firearm. There are already laws against criminal negligence

[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:
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.

Typical response, touting technical gun details. Not that PP, but you absolutely know more than me about technical gun specifics. Gold star for that.

Now stop with the distraction and deflection and focus on the actual issues at hand. Research shows that restrictive gun law states have lower pediatric gun deaths. There is plenty of published research on this or that impact of gun control laws within 2a. But I may surmise that you only cherry pick the highly disputed good guy with a gun research of Locke and ignore anything that contradicts it?

Can we prevent every child from being murdered or accidentally shooting themself or committing suicide? No. Can we reduce it statistically? Yes. Is that worth it to me, a mother? YES. Is it worth it to you? Apparently not.

Do not tell me about mental illness or video games or whatever that many other countries in the world have, because that argument is BS.

Ever comforted someone who attended a funeral of a child who died in a school shooting and talked about how tiny the casket was? I have.

Stop with the technical detail to brag about your gun knowledge. It does not matter.

DP it absolutely matters. Technical features are what you would have to ban. Otherwise they get deisgned around like with the 1990s assualt weapons ban.

You can't just ban "ar-15"s, unless you have a definition of one.

The “technical features” typically targeted by attempted “bans” are largely cosmetic and demonstrate both the futility of such “bans” and the magical thinking that underlies them.

Waiting periods, increase the age to 21, crack down on straw purchases that are largely done in red states who make illegal straw purchases ridiculously easy, ammunition limits, close loopholes on background checks there are things that can be done.

The Second Amendment is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
-Scalia

Waiting periods were invented to allow time for background checks back in the horse and buggy days. They make no sense in the present day of instant background checks. Particularly where, as here, an individual already owns one or more firearms so that any supposed “cooling off period” would be immaterial.

“Ammunition limits” are inherently arbitrary and would have no meaningful on criminality. It is unlikely that any of these deranged shooters used up more than a box or two of ammunition. Legitimate firearm users need ammunition both for their hobby and to become and remain competent with their firearm.

All of the “loopholes” and “age changes” and “straw purchase” sloganeering is great rhetoric but the need for it does not seem to be borne out in the demographics of these psychopaths.

So because you subjectively think gun laws won’t work the rest of the country just has to accept the status quo and we shouldn’t even *try* to see if we can reduce shooting deaths?

I mean if you declare that these laws “make no sense” and “would be arbitrary” then it must be decidedly so.

I think the reality is republicans know that harsher national gun laws would reduce deaths and then they’d have to admit they’ve allowed kids to die for decades in order to avoid minor inconveniences.

[Anonymous]

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

It depends. Are they 5 feet away? Is the weapon drawn and ready? Am I armed ? Is there cover nearby? Does the crazy person have concealment? Have clear are their lines of shooting or are there objects that make wielding a knife easier than a gun?

If you have self defense training, which I highly recommend anyone get in this reality you learn that some situations are more favorable than others based off what scenario you are in as to weapon type of an aggressor.

I have been following your responses and arguments all day here. You are far too informed and sensible to be arguing with these people.

I don’t see how this is sensible. If someone is 5 feet away they may be able to stab you, but they can definitely shoot you. Heck they can shoot you from much farther away before you even see 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:
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.

Typical response, touting technical gun details. Not that PP, but you absolutely know more than me about technical gun specifics. Gold star for that.

Now stop with the distraction and deflection and focus on the actual issues at hand. Research shows that restrictive gun law states have lower pediatric gun deaths. There is plenty of published research on this or that impact of gun control laws within 2a. But I may surmise that you only cherry pick the highly disputed good guy with a gun research of Locke and ignore anything that contradicts it?

Can we prevent every child from being murdered or accidentally shooting themself or committing suicide? No. Can we reduce it statistically? Yes. Is that worth it to me, a mother? YES. Is it worth it to you? Apparently not.

Do not tell me about mental illness or video games or whatever that many other countries in the world have, because that argument is BS.

Ever comforted someone who attended a funeral of a child who died in a school shooting and talked about how tiny the casket was? I have.

Stop with the technical detail to brag about your gun knowledge. It does not matter.

DP it absolutely matters. Technical features are what you would have to ban. Otherwise they get deisgned around like with the 1990s assualt weapons ban.

You can't just ban "ar-15"s, unless you have a definition of one.

The “technical features” typically targeted by attempted “bans” are largely cosmetic and demonstrate both the futility of such “bans” and the magical thinking that underlies them.

Waiting periods, increase the age to 21, crack down on straw purchases that are largely done in red states who make illegal straw purchases ridiculously easy, ammunition limits, close loopholes on background checks there are things that can be done.

The Second Amendment is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
-Scalia

Waiting periods were invented to allow time for background checks back in the horse and buggy days. They make no sense in the present day of instant background checks. Particularly where, as here, an individual already owns one or more firearms so that any supposed “cooling off period” would be immaterial.

“Ammunition limits” are inherently arbitrary and would have no meaningful on criminality. It is unlikely that any of these deranged shooters used up more than a box or two of ammunition. Legitimate firearm users need ammunition both for their hobby and to become and remain competent with their firearm.

All of the “loopholes” and “age changes” and “straw purchase” sloganeering is great rhetoric but the need for it does not seem to be borne out in the demographics of these psychopaths.

So because you subjectively think gun laws won’t work the rest of the country just has to accept the status quo and we shouldn’t even *try* to see if we can reduce shooting deaths?

I mean if you declare that these laws “make no sense” and “would be arbitrary” then it must be decidedly so.

I think the reality is republicans know that harsher national gun laws would reduce deaths and then they’d have to admit they’ve allowed kids to die for decades in order to avoid minor inconveniences.

That's the thing. Every comment is their opinion and the only research they can cite is Lott (good guy with gun proponent)!who's hypothesis does not bear out in a larger meta analysis of many, many studies (not just Lott's).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For trans people being so rare, they sure do commit a lot of school shootings.

Isn't it like 2, out of a total of about 1000 school shootings over the last 5 years?

I think it’s like .1% of mass shootings that are committed by trans people.

Also, I’m not 100% sure these “trans” shooters are really trans vs. mentally ill with gender dysphoria.

To be clear, I’m not saying being trans is a mental illness. But I do think there is a delineation between genuinely trans people just trying to live their lives to match their inside vs. people who are mentally ill and confused. Just like how some people are truly neurodiverse and some people are just weird and self diagnosing.

Also for being less than half the general population, cis men sure commit a disproportionate amount of mass shootings (like 90% +). So if there is a demographic that is concerning it is men. They also commit the vast majority of sexual assaults, robberies, terrorist attacks, etc.

Well said.

No, it's not. By definition, gender dysphoria--which is what all trans people have (no, not intersex people, trans people) is a mental illness. I am not saying as this as a slight or insult, but fact. This is why we have such a problem in the US. People like you and the PP have no clue that this is a mental illness. You have bought into the mania that now requires all people--mentally ill or not--to "affirm" their illness by pretending like they are. It is not healthy, it is not right. And most people haven't made the smallest effort to educate themselves because they don't want to look "conservative." I am not a conservative--far from it--but I know that a man cannot be a woman. We have to stop this "affirming" care and just get these people the kind of care they would actually benefit from.

People used to say the same thing about being gay. Should we go back to classifying them as mentally ill too?

Have you even considered that there could be some sort of genetic or hormonal reason to explain being trans that isn’t mental illness?

[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:

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.

Lott research enthusiast, knew it. Per metaanalysis, weak/poor research supports his "good guy with a gun* hypothesis, better/stronger research doesn't.

https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Gun-Crime-Methodological-Review-of-the-Evidence.pdf

Lott is not the only such study.

And I’m still waiting for the waiting period link? Is there a waiting period for that?

Yes, that was a meta analysis above, yes?

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1619896114

Thanks for this. It will take some time to study. At first glance, I’m disappointed that it seems to rely largely if not exclusively on “post hoc ergo propter hoc” reasoning, does not appear to control for persons who had preexisting access to firearms, and (incidentally) uses so many “weasel words” (like “our study implies”) as to be pretty unconvincing. But I’ll take a look.

[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:

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.

Lott research enthusiast, knew it. Per metaanalysis, weak/poor research supports his "good guy with a gun* hypothesis, better/stronger research doesn't.

https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Gun-Crime-Methodological-Review-of-the-Evidence.pdf

Lott is not the only such study.

And I’m still waiting for the waiting period link? Is there a waiting period for that?

Yes, that was a meta analysis above, yes?

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1619896114

Thanks for this. It will take some time to study. At first glance, I’m disappointed that it seems to rely largely if not exclusively on “post hoc ergo propter hoc” reasoning, does not appear to control for persons who had preexisting access to firearms, and (incidentally) uses so many “weasel words” (like “our study implies”) as to be pretty unconvincing. But I’ll take a look.

For a really wordy person who likes to use big words to sound intelligent, your criticisms here are hilarious.

Care to comment on the meta analysis that did not just review Lott, or did you not know what a meta analysis is? Kinda gave away your lack of understanding of research earlier

[Anonymous]

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.

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 type of bullet” is typically a full metal jacketed spitzer projectile that is virtually universal across rifle types and calibers.

DP. People who want to ban AR-15s are wrong when they say "it will destroy the meat," but it's also a mistake to act like there's no reason mass shootings like this are so often committed with weapons like an AR-15. A rifle is generally more lethal than a handgun and an intermediate cartridge like most ARs are chambered in is relatively easy for a less experienced shooter to fire rapidly because it has less recoil than a full size cartridge, and you don't need a .30-06 to kill elementary schoolers.

I don't know that that means they should be banned, but disingenuous to act like the design of the rifle isn't relevant.