20 victims reported at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

FFS we aren’t trying to take away guns from the “good guy with a gun.” We are asking the “good guy with a gun” to accept some minor inconveniences in gun and ammo purchasing to help reduce the number of shooting deaths. They are welcome to participate in a national background check/data base and continue to lawfully and non-negligently own their guns.

Regardless of your personal desires, complete disarmament and the eradication of privately held firearms is the express goal and desire of numerous “gun control” proponents, as evidenced by post after post on this and other threads.

“Numerous” 🙄.

Also we can’t even get consistent enforcement of existing gun laws. There is a zero percent chance any politician of any party attempt complete eradication of guns. This is such a ridiculous and lazy slippery slope type argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

+1

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

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

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

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

Not hyperbole when it hits a child.

-RN

From your alleged sample size of?

I trust the experts more than some ammosexual anonymous poster.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You ammosexuals have a mental illness.

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

“Military grade” is another rhetorical buzzword without meaning.

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

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

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

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.

Actually, what “we’ve” been trying for decades is the same tired and ineffectual set of infringements to distract from the root causes of criminal violence, because addressing those would be unpopular with certain politically useful groups.

Ah yes like forcing Christianity on us? If only we went to church more? Or repealed the 19th like Hegseth's church leaders want?

Gee thanks

-Law abiding atheist.

I'm obviously being provocative with this statement and correlation is not causation:

We had less mass shootings and less violence when there was no 19th amendment or when organized religion was a larger part of Americans lives.

This was also before there were movie theaters, splash pads, big box stores, etc. Perhaps the issue is that guns are continually being manufactured so that year after year after year there are even more guns for people to access combined with denser areas creating more soft mass shooting targets.

Most atheists I know are liberal and pro gun reform. It’s the Bible thumpers who love them some guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, what “we’ve” been trying for decades is the same tired and ineffectual set of infringements to distract from the root causes of criminal violence, because addressing those would be unpopular with certain politically useful groups.

Ah yes like forcing Christianity on us? If only we went to church more? Or repealed the 19th like Hegseth's church leaders want?

Gee thanks

-Law abiding atheist.

I'm obviously being provocative with this statement and correlation is not causation:

We had less mass shootings and less violence when there was no 19th amendment or when organized religion was a larger part of Americans lives.

This was also before there were movie theaters, splash pads, big box stores, etc. Perhaps the issue is that guns are continually being manufactured so that year after year after year there are even more guns for people to access combined with denser areas creating more soft mass shooting targets.

Most atheists I know are liberal and pro gun reform. It’s the Bible thumpers who love them some guns.

I would stop. By virtue of that post, they are a misogynist ala Doug Wilson type. Not even worth the time. Also, very far right fringe with that comment.

[Anonymous]

Question for those who claim gun laws don’t work.

If, hypothetically, it could be proven beyond a doubt that stricter gun laws would significantly reduce gun deaths (particularly re: children), would you then agree to jump through some hoops (longer wait, limits on ammo, etc.)?

Because I’m fairly confident you’re just making the conclusory argument that gun reform won’t work so that you don’t have to admit to yourself that you just don’t want to be bothered. But even you know it sounds bad to say “I will accept the status quo of gun deaths because I don’t want to be inconvenienced,” so instead you’ll contort yourself into pretzels to blame any f-ing thing except the guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question for those who claim gun laws don’t work.

If, hypothetically, it could be proven beyond a doubt that stricter gun laws would significantly reduce gun deaths (particularly re: children), would you then agree to jump through some hoops (longer wait, limits on ammo, etc.)?

Because I’m fairly confident you’re just making the conclusory argument that gun reform won’t work so that you don’t have to admit to yourself that you just don’t want to be bothered. But even you know it sounds bad to say “I will accept the status quo of gun deaths because I don’t want to be inconvenienced,” so instead you’ll contort yourself into pretzels to blame any f-ing thing except the guns.

“Gun laws don’t work” isn’t “conclusory argument.” It’s an observation of demonstrated fact. And continued pursuit of the same tired, failed “solutions” takes attention and resources away from dealing with whatever has happened in US society to make some people think killing their neighbors is a desirable goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for those who claim gun laws don’t work.

If, hypothetically, it could be proven beyond a doubt that stricter gun laws would significantly reduce gun deaths (particularly re: children), would you then agree to jump through some hoops (longer wait, limits on ammo, etc.)?

Because I’m fairly confident you’re just making the conclusory argument that gun reform won’t work so that you don’t have to admit to yourself that you just don’t want to be bothered. But even you know it sounds bad to say “I will accept the status quo of gun deaths because I don’t want to be inconvenienced,” so instead you’ll contort yourself into pretzels to blame any f-ing thing except the guns.

“Gun laws don’t work” isn’t “conclusory argument.” It’s an observation of demonstrated fact. And continued pursuit of the same tired, failed “solutions” takes attention and resources away from dealing with whatever has happened in US society to make some people think killing their neighbors is a desirable goal.

It is not demonstrated fact that it doesn’t work. We haven’t even tried to enforce any sort of national gun policy reform, so you’re just deciding it won’t work before we even try. Not to mention there was a reduction in mass shootings during the assualt weapons ban in the 90s. Plus numerous other countries have successfully enacted stricter gun laws.

How about, we try it for 10 years and if nothing improves we can go back to doing it your way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for those who claim gun laws don’t work.

If, hypothetically, it could be proven beyond a doubt that stricter gun laws would significantly reduce gun deaths (particularly re: children), would you then agree to jump through some hoops (longer wait, limits on ammo, etc.)?

Because I’m fairly confident you’re just making the conclusory argument that gun reform won’t work so that you don’t have to admit to yourself that you just don’t want to be bothered. But even you know it sounds bad to say “I will accept the status quo of gun deaths because I don’t want to be inconvenienced,” so instead you’ll contort yourself into pretzels to blame any f-ing thing except the guns.

“Gun laws don’t work” isn’t “conclusory argument.” It’s an observation of demonstrated fact. And continued pursuit of the same tired, failed “solutions” takes attention and resources away from dealing with whatever has happened in US society to make some people think killing their neighbors is a desirable goal.

It is not demonstrated fact that it doesn’t work. We haven’t even tried to enforce any sort of national gun policy reform, so you’re just deciding it won’t work before we even try. Not to mention there was a reduction in mass shootings during the assualt weapons ban in the 90s. Plus numerous other countries have successfully enacted stricter gun laws.

How about, we try it for 10 years and if nothing improves we can go back to doing it your way.

The poster guy is a misogynist of the belief that life is better when women are subordinate and cannot vote. He wouldn't even deny it. His views are far right/fringe. Not worth arguing with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for those who claim gun laws don’t work.

If, hypothetically, it could be proven beyond a doubt that stricter gun laws would significantly reduce gun deaths (particularly re: children), would you then agree to jump through some hoops (longer wait, limits on ammo, etc.)?

Because I’m fairly confident you’re just making the conclusory argument that gun reform won’t work so that you don’t have to admit to yourself that you just don’t want to be bothered. But even you know it sounds bad to say “I will accept the status quo of gun deaths because I don’t want to be inconvenienced,” so instead you’ll contort yourself into pretzels to blame any f-ing thing except the guns.

“Gun laws don’t work” isn’t “conclusory argument.” It’s an observation of demonstrated fact. And continued pursuit of the same tired, failed “solutions” takes attention and resources away from dealing with whatever has happened in US society to make some people think killing their neighbors is a desirable goal.

It is not demonstrated fact that it doesn’t work. We haven’t even tried to enforce any sort of national gun policy reform, so you’re just deciding it won’t work before we even try. Not to mention there was a reduction in mass shootings during the assualt weapons ban in the 90s. Plus numerous other countries have successfully enacted stricter gun laws.

How about, we try it for 10 years and if nothing improves we can go back to doing it your way.

This is a guy who would repeal the 19th if we get to "trying things"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for those who claim gun laws don’t work.

If, hypothetically, it could be proven beyond a doubt that stricter gun laws would significantly reduce gun deaths (particularly re: children), would you then agree to jump through some hoops (longer wait, limits on ammo, etc.)?

Because I’m fairly confident you’re just making the conclusory argument that gun reform won’t work so that you don’t have to admit to yourself that you just don’t want to be bothered. But even you know it sounds bad to say “I will accept the status quo of gun deaths because I don’t want to be inconvenienced,” so instead you’ll contort yourself into pretzels to blame any f-ing thing except the guns.

“Gun laws don’t work” isn’t “conclusory argument.” It’s an observation of demonstrated fact. And continued pursuit of the same tired, failed “solutions” takes attention and resources away from dealing with whatever has happened in US society to make some people think killing their neighbors is a desirable goal.

It’s not a demonstrated fact. You are some kind of political shill here trying out the only possible line that you think will work: blame gun violence on black people, trans people and SSRIs. You’re disgusting and literally have the blood of children in your hands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for those who claim gun laws don’t work.

If, hypothetically, it could be proven beyond a doubt that stricter gun laws would significantly reduce gun deaths (particularly re: children), would you then agree to jump through some hoops (longer wait, limits on ammo, etc.)?

Because I’m fairly confident you’re just making the conclusory argument that gun reform won’t work so that you don’t have to admit to yourself that you just don’t want to be bothered. But even you know it sounds bad to say “I will accept the status quo of gun deaths because I don’t want to be inconvenienced,” so instead you’ll contort yourself into pretzels to blame any f-ing thing except the guns.

“Gun laws don’t work” isn’t “conclusory argument.” It’s an observation of demonstrated fact. And continued pursuit of the same tired, failed “solutions” takes attention and resources away from dealing with whatever has happened in US society to make some people think killing their neighbors is a desirable goal.

It is not demonstrated fact that it doesn’t work. We haven’t even tried to enforce any sort of national gun policy reform, so you’re just deciding it won’t work before we even try. Not to mention there was a reduction in mass shootings during the assualt weapons ban in the 90s. Plus numerous other countries have successfully enacted stricter gun laws.

How about, we try it for 10 years and if nothing improves we can go back to doing it your way.

Yes. I’d take a ten-year reprieve. I bet people would support it if the crime numbers drop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for those who claim gun laws don’t work.

If, hypothetically, it could be proven beyond a doubt that stricter gun laws would significantly reduce gun deaths (particularly re: children), would you then agree to jump through some hoops (longer wait, limits on ammo, etc.)?

Because I’m fairly confident you’re just making the conclusory argument that gun reform won’t work so that you don’t have to admit to yourself that you just don’t want to be bothered. But even you know it sounds bad to say “I will accept the status quo of gun deaths because I don’t want to be inconvenienced,” so instead you’ll contort yourself into pretzels to blame any f-ing thing except the guns.

“Gun laws don’t work” isn’t “conclusory argument.” It’s an observation of demonstrated fact. And continued pursuit of the same tired, failed “solutions” takes attention and resources away from dealing with whatever has happened in US society to make some people think killing their neighbors is a desirable goal.

It’s not a demonstrated fact. You are some kind of political shill here trying out the only possible line that you think will work: blame gun violence on black people, trans people and SSRIs. You’re disgusting and literally have the blood of children in your hands.

Stop engaging the guy who thinks life was best when women could not vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for those who claim gun laws don’t work.

If, hypothetically, it could be proven beyond a doubt that stricter gun laws would significantly reduce gun deaths (particularly re: children), would you then agree to jump through some hoops (longer wait, limits on ammo, etc.)?

Because I’m fairly confident you’re just making the conclusory argument that gun reform won’t work so that you don’t have to admit to yourself that you just don’t want to be bothered. But even you know it sounds bad to say “I will accept the status quo of gun deaths because I don’t want to be inconvenienced,” so instead you’ll contort yourself into pretzels to blame any f-ing thing except the guns.

“Gun laws don’t work” isn’t “conclusory argument.” It’s an observation of demonstrated fact. And continued pursuit of the same tired, failed “solutions” takes attention and resources away from dealing with whatever has happened in US society to make some people think killing their neighbors is a desirable goal.

It’s not a demonstrated fact. You are some kind of political shill here trying out the only possible line that you think will work: blame gun violence on black people, trans people and SSRIs. You’re disgusting and literally have the blood of children in your hands.

Unfortunately profiling does work, as evidenced in NYC, but it's not legal nor desirable for the freedom loving society we live in.

It's undeniable that black and brown bodies suffer an outsized portion of gun violence. It's a major social justice issue.

[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.

FFS we aren’t trying to take away guns from the “good guy with a gun.” We are asking the “good guy with a gun” to accept some minor inconveniences in gun and ammo purchasing to help reduce the number of shooting deaths. They are welcome to participate in a national background check/data base and continue to lawfully and non-negligently own their guns.

Why, Oh WHY, are you so adamantly opposed to putting all the habitual-offender felons, who are caught with guns in DC, in actually jail (without bail) and held until trial, and then given long sentences?

Why are you so against that??!? You democrats refuse to put anyone under the age of 26 in jail - for even a single night - in DC, even for gun crimes! Your progressive “prosecutors” refuse to prosecute gun crimes. You hobble the police and won’t let them go after armed offenders. You Democrats sit by and do NOTHING while there were 975 ARMED carjackings in 2024, in the tiny enclave of DC alone. Yet you do nothing to stop it.

- and yet you come crying to us law-abiding gun owners to give up our rights? Seriously?!?

You are not a serious person, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for those who claim gun laws don’t work.

If, hypothetically, it could be proven beyond a doubt that stricter gun laws would significantly reduce gun deaths (particularly re: children), would you then agree to jump through some hoops (longer wait, limits on ammo, etc.)?

Because I’m fairly confident you’re just making the conclusory argument that gun reform won’t work so that you don’t have to admit to yourself that you just don’t want to be bothered. But even you know it sounds bad to say “I will accept the status quo of gun deaths because I don’t want to be inconvenienced,” so instead you’ll contort yourself into pretzels to blame any f-ing thing except the guns.

“Gun laws don’t work” isn’t “conclusory argument.” It’s an observation of demonstrated fact. And continued pursuit of the same tired, failed “solutions” takes attention and resources away from dealing with whatever has happened in US society to make some people think killing their neighbors is a desirable goal.

It’s not a demonstrated fact. You are some kind of political shill here trying out the only possible line that you think will work: blame gun violence on black people, trans people and SSRIs. You’re disgusting and literally have the blood of children in your hands.

Stop engaging the guy who thinks life was best when women could not vote.

That is a total mischaracterization of that person's position.

Corellation is not causation doesn't mean that the trend that is noticed is always the cause. There's actually a whole website that is dedicated to correlations which is quite humerous, like increases in cheese sold correlates with murder rates.



Rather the takeaway is that this wasn't a problem in the past. Something has changed that made mass shootings increase inspite of it being harder to get firearms than it was in the past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for those who claim gun laws don’t work.

If, hypothetically, it could be proven beyond a doubt that stricter gun laws would significantly reduce gun deaths (particularly re: children), would you then agree to jump through some hoops (longer wait, limits on ammo, etc.)?

Because I’m fairly confident you’re just making the conclusory argument that gun reform won’t work so that you don’t have to admit to yourself that you just don’t want to be bothered. But even you know it sounds bad to say “I will accept the status quo of gun deaths because I don’t want to be inconvenienced,” so instead you’ll contort yourself into pretzels to blame any f-ing thing except the guns.

“Gun laws don’t work” isn’t “conclusory argument.” It’s an observation of demonstrated fact. And continued pursuit of the same tired, failed “solutions” takes attention and resources away from dealing with whatever has happened in US society to make some people think killing their neighbors is a desirable goal.

It’s not a demonstrated fact. You are some kind of political shill here trying out the only possible line that you think will work: blame gun violence on black people, trans people and SSRIs. You’re disgusting and literally have the blood of children in your hands.

These must be your own ideas because none of my posts say anything of the kind.

And my hands are clean, thanks, because I don’t push for superstition-driven fantasy “solutions” to behavioral atrocities that have only gotten steadily worse in response to every successive wave of gun “control.”