On the recent mass killing in Texas

[E.man]

Looks like any decent move to control assault rifles is already being discounted.

Meanwhile on the streets of America it keeps on happening.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Courts have established that police have no duty to intervene or to keep anyone safe under just about any circumstances so if the parents try to sue the police force they'll have no shot.
Here's a funny one:
https://prospect.org/justice/police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-public/


"Sorry, no justice for the murder of your children because once a child is actually born we stop giving a ****"

When I saw this article, it reminded me of your post about police not having any duty to protect the public:

Bodycam shows Arizona cops standing by while man begs for help before drowning

A man drowned in an Arizona lake as police officers stood by and allegedly ignored his pleas for help, according to a bodycam transcript of the interaction.
...
In the transcript, Bickings tells the officers he’s drowning and they tell him to swim over to the pylon and grab hold of it to keep himself afloat. “I’m drowning,” he said. “Come back over to the pylon,” one officer responded. “I can’t. I can’t,” Bickings said. “Okay, I’m not jumping in after you,” the other officer said. "Please help me. Please, please, please,” Bickings begged. “I can’t touch. Oh God, please help me. Help me.” Bickings’ partner also pleads with the officers to do something to help him. “I’m just distraught because he’s drowning right in front of you and you won’t help,” she said. One of the officers threatens to put her in his police car if she doesn’t calm down, according to the transcript.

https://nypost.com/2022/06/06/arizona-cops-stand-by-while-man-drowns-begs-for-help-bodycam/

According to the story, the man jumped into the lake when the police arrived to investigate a domestic disturbance report, saying that he was going for a swim, despite being told by police that it was illegal to jump in that water. Of course in the recent Texas school shooting, its not like the kids were warned it was illegal to attend school.

I just saw a John Oliver piece on Scholl Resource Officers, and... yikes. Makes one concerned about the possibility of that becoming the norm in response to these shootings.

 

[Lexicus]

Bodycam shows Arizona cops standing by while man begs for help before drowning
According to the story, the man jumped into the lake when the police arrived to investigate a domestic disturbance report, saying that he was going for a swim, despite being told by police that it was illegal to jump in that water.

https://nypost.com/2022/06/06/arizona-cops-stand-by-while-man-drowns-begs-for-help-bodycam/

This is particularly hilarious because as a lifeguard getting paid $9 an hour I'd have gotten fired and possibly sued for behaving the same way

 

[Sommerswerd]

Here's the John Oliver video I was talking about (police guards at school, aka School Resource Officers / SROs)

 

[Kyriakos]

When I saw this article, it reminded me of your post about police not having any duty to protect the public:

Bodycam shows Arizona cops standing by while man begs for help before drowning
https://nypost.com/2022/06/06/arizona-cops-stand-by-while-man-drowns-begs-for-help-bodycam/

According to the story, the man jumped into the lake when the police arrived to investigate a domestic disturbance report, saying that he was going for a swim, despite being told by police that it was illegal to jump in that water. Of course in the recent Texas school shooting, its not like the kids were warned it was illegal to attend school.

I just saw a John Oliver piece on Scholl Resource Officers, and... yikes. Makes one concerned about the possibility of that becoming the norm in response to these shootings.

The police were being the useless police, that said...
how can you be living in an area with a lake and not be aware that if you can't swim you will drown? I suppose it's not water with high concentration of salt either, so he wouldn't float.

 

[Farm Boy]

This is particularly hilarious because as a lifeguard getting paid $9 an hour I'd have gotten fired and possibly sued for behaving the same way

You'll need to settle for him burning in hell.

If you're already laughing, that's a good start. No?

 

[Angst]

You'll need to settle for him burning in hell.

If you're already laughing, that's a good start. No?

i know you're tongue in cheek, but i'm just gonna respond here, i don't believe hell exists, ie no accountability for repercussion for these things (at least we have no reasonable proof for it), this does not alleviate my feelings about the situation

 

[Lexicus]

You'll need to settle for him burning in hell.

If you're already laughing, that's a good start. No?

Not really, not when a majority of our voters want to hire more of these guys and give them more guns

 

[Farm Boy]

Why do you think I'm tongue in cheek? Believe it exists. You don't have to go anywhere to experience it.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I stumbled over this in my travels: From Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton (US Army-ret.), via Twitter, June 2, 2022.

As the former Commanding General of the Infantry Center at Fort Benning and Chief of Infantry, I know a bit about weapons. Let me state unequivocally — For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war.

Those opposed to assault weapon bans continue to play games with AR-15 semantics, pretending there’s some meaningful differences between it and the M4 carbine that the military carries. There really aren’t.

The military began a transition from the M16 to the M4, an improved M16, some years ago. The AR-15 is essentially the civilian version of the M16. The M4 is really close to the M16, and the AR-15.

So what’s the difference between the military’s M4 and the original AR-15? Barrel length and the ability to shoot three round bursts. M4s can shoot in three round bursts. AR-15s can only shoot single shot.

But even now, you can buy AR-15s in variable barrel lengths with Weaver or Picatinny rails for better sights and aiming assists like lasers. Like the military, but w/o the bayonet.

But our troops usually use single shot, not burst fire. You’re able to fire a much more accurate (deadly) shot, that way. Note: you can buy our Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight on Amazon. So troops usually select the same fire option available on AR-15.

That is why the AR-15 is ACCURATELY CALLED a ‘weapon of war.’ It is a very deadly weapon with the same basic functionality that our troops use to kill the enemy. Don’t take the bait when anti-gun-safety folks argue about it. They know it’s true. Now you do too.

This talking point for some pro-gun folks had already been put to bed, as far as I was concerned, but still, it's nice to see someone with some credentials confirm what I thought I already knew.

I saw somewhere that Russel Honore, another retired US Army general, said that the AR-15 should not be "in the public domain", and that the minimum age to buy any gun should be 21, but I can't confirm any of that. I haven't found the source of the quote with a quick Google search.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I stumbled over this in my travels: From Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton (US Army-ret.), via Twitter, June 2, 2022.

This talking point for some pro-gun folks had already been put to bed, as far as I was concerned, but still, it's nice to see someone with some credentials confirm what I thought I already knew.

I saw somewhere that Russel Honore, another retired US Army general, said that the AR-15 should not be "in the public domain", and that the minimum age to buy any gun should be 21, but I can't confirm any of that. I haven't found the source of the quote with a quick Google search.

I heard this on the news coming into work today.

 

[Samson]

I stumbled over this in my travels: From Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton (US Army-ret.), via Twitter, June 2, 2022.

This talking point for some pro-gun folks had already been put to bed, as far as I was concerned, but still, it's nice to see someone with some credentials confirm what I thought I already knew.

I saw somewhere that Russel Honore, another retired US Army general, said that the AR-15 should not be "in the public domain", and that the minimum age to buy any gun should be 21, but I can't confirm any of that. I haven't found the source of the quote with a quick Google search.

It does beg the question what is it that makes the difference then? These are the last 100 years of US service rifles, and they were all the best tool for killing people at the time. The blot action seems to me the biggest difference in killing power, and is there any hope of getting rid of semi autos?

Spoiler 100+ years of US Army main service rifles :

 

[EgonSpengler]

It does beg the question what is it that makes the difference then? These are the last 100 years of US service rifles, and they were all the best tool for killing people at the time. The blot action seems to me the biggest difference in killing power, and is there any hope of getting rid of semi autos?

Spoiler 100+ years of US Army main service rifles :

What makes the difference between what? I'm not sure I understand the question.

As for 'getting rid' of AR-15s, I think whatever measures are implemented would have to be undertaken with the long view in mind. You'd have to stop the sales of the guns, of course, or nothing else you'd do would be of much value. I think a voluntary buyback program would slowly drain the pool. I'm not sure how inheritance law handles the transfer of guns to estate inheritors currently. Does the inheritor need to have a license to take possession? What if they don't? Anyway, maybe guns that are part of an inheritance would be confiscated and reimbursed, as a kind of involuntary buyback program. Maybe existing guns that people want to keep would be "grandfathered" under a new law, but when that person passes away, their children can't inherit them. I'm just riffing here, I don't know anything about estate law, or wills, or anything like that.

 

[Samson]

What makes the difference between what? I'm not sure I understand the question.

Gen. Eaton is saying "the AR-15 is ACCURATELY CALLED a ‘weapon of war.’", which would indicate that there are guns available that are not weapons of war. What features distinguish an AR-15 from these other guns if it is not selectable semi-auto/auto modes?

My point with the photo is that "weapon of war" covers a lot of the long guns that are available today. The things that would obviously make a difference to me, such as requiring rifles to be bolt action rather than semi-auto, would not be acceptable to a lot of people who may support banning the AR-15.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

But when they use "assault weapons"

Everytown defines a mass shooting as any incident in which four or more people are shot and killed, excluding the shooter.

The archetypal mass shooting occurs in a public place like a school or a bar. While mass shootings in public places tend to receive more media attention, the majority of these shootings actually occur in private homes.

lol

"assault weapon", as we covered earlier in the thread, is a fake term designed to mean whatever is most convenient. more people die to "assault knives" yearly than "assault rifles", by a wide margin.

"mass shooting" gets defined however is most convenient to fit the narrative, which is clearly being done in the graphic. it should be self-evident why what i quoted completely refutes the utility of the images you linked, but i suspect it still won't be here, somehow. so i will spell it out and give my reasons for the "lol" below:

Spoiler :

we expect different outcomes at baseline for gang violence and domestic homicides than we do when someone makes a dedicated effort to shoot as many people indiscriminately in one location as possible. any graphic that lumps these together to make conclusions about fundamentally extremely different circumstances is not just misleading. it's dishonest.

the median "mass shooter" looks very, very different from the ones that make the news and generate outrage.

i guess they didn't want to go back far enough to demonstrate what happens when a mass shooter packs a couple of pistols instead, but i was in college when that happened (fortunately not the college where it happened) so i remember. iirc that guy got way less than 90 minutes, too.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Gen. Eaton is saying "the AR-15 is ACCURATELY CALLED a ‘weapon of war.’", which would indicate that there are guns available that are not weapons of war. What features distinguish an AR-15 from these other guns if it is not selectable semi-auto/auto modes?

My point with the photo is that "weapon of war" covers a lot of the long guns that are available today. The things that would obviously make a difference to me, such as requiring rifles to be bolt action rather than semi-auto, would not be acceptable to a lot of people who may support banning the AR-15.

A bolt-action rifle used to be a weapon of war so in that sense the distinction is pretty meaningless. Being semi-automatic and having a large magazine size greatly increase the deadliness of a weapon used in a mass shooting. I'd think they'd be better off going for banning specific features rather than vague categories.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'd think they'd be better off going for banning specific features rather than vague categories.

we've been doing that longer than most people here have been alive with no meaningful long-term change in us homicide rate. great depression's homicide rate was comparable to parts of 1990s. 2018s was comparable to 1960s.

worth noting from samson's link that a substantial fraction of mass shooters have warning signs or were legally banned from owning a firearm (in some cases both), so the expected gains even wrt mass shooting should be tempered by that fact. making something illegal more illegal isn't going to change the behavior pattern in the context of "if you commit to doing this your life (and many others) is effectively over" already being the consequence.

you'd do a lot better to limit cause/motivation for mass shooting + acting on warning signs than another round of assault gun/knife/etc law.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Gen. Eaton is saying "the AR-15 is ACCURATELY CALLED a ‘weapon of war.’", which would indicate that there are guns available that are not weapons of war. What features distinguish an AR-15 from these other guns if it is not selectable semi-auto/auto modes?

My point with the photo is that "weapon of war" covers a lot of the long guns that are available today. The things that would obviously make a difference to me, such as requiring rifles to be bolt action rather than semi-auto, would not be acceptable to a lot of people who may support banning the AR-15.

Yes, I think only taking action to reduce the number of AR-15s in the US would just be a drop in the bucket. Even semi-automatic long guns of all kinds aren't a huge part of the problem. It's handguns. I think I mentioned earlier that one of the things that really jumps out when you compare gun ownership in Canada with gun ownership in the US is in the number of handguns down here compared to up there. I think there are lots of hunters in Canada, and I have no idea what types of guns Canadian hunters use. But, sure, okay, I'd have no problem trying to reduce the number of semi-auto long guns. I think hunters and sport shooters can do just fine with bolt-action guns that have smaller magazines, take a moment to reload, and don't have pistol grips and folding stocks. There may be accessories for these "sporting rifles" that hunters don't really need, per se, they're just fun to have, that you could restrict. For example, iirc, the 'bump stocks' the shooter in Las Vegas used in 2017 weren't technically illegal at the time.

 

[Kyriakos]

The tree-like people's roots must be refreshed, from time to time, with discussions about bans that won't happen.

Is there any likelihood that 'this time' there will be a different effect and outcome than in the previous hundreds? I don't see how there would, yet a lot of articles are generated on the premise yet again. Surely for noble reason.

 

[EgonSpengler]

The tree-like people's roots must be refreshed, from time to time, with discussions about bans that won't happen.

Yes, I think most of what I'm writing here is just hot air. There's little reason to think we won't be here in another week, month or year, talking about another 10-20 people being executed in a store, school, or church, which still won't be more than a rounding error in the overall number of Americans killed by firearms in a given year.