Gun violence epidemic

[DMT]

Nothing will change until Moscow Mitch is no longer running the Senate.

[Kevin Seitzer]

I did an informal, unscientific study of "mass shootings" using the Gun Violence Archive's definition that a "mass shooting" is defined as "4 or more people shot in one incident", and Wikipedia's list of these shootings.

During the 10-year period when the Assault Rifle Ban was in place (Sept 13, 1994-Sept 13, 2004), there were 27 mass shootings in the US. In the 10-year period immediately afterwards, there were 61 mass shootings, a 226% increase. (By means of comparison, there were 29 mass shootings in the 10-year period from 1984-Sept 12, 1994, remarkably similar to the 10-year ban period).

In 2018-2019, there have been 31 mass shootings so far, or 4 more than there were over the entire 10-year period of the ban.

Now I have no idea in how many of these attacks assault rifles were involved, but the evidence seems remarkably clear that since the ban ended, these types of incidents have markedly increased. As far as I know, mental illness and violent video games existed prior to Sept. 13, 2004.

Do you have the data to know what the number of mass shootings was before 1994? I wonder if mass shootings (or the tracking of them) has just been going up for a while?

Part of the reason I ask that is that AR-15s and large capacity magazines were as easy to get during the Assault Weapons ban as they are now. Probably easier, because they were a lot cheaper back then. That ban regulated a bunch of cosmetic features, which the manufacturers then adapted to by dropping those cosmetic features from their rifles.

I think the ban actually had the opposite of effect of what it intended, which was to popularize ownership of the AR-15 as a symbol of anti-authority sentiment, without actually hindering the sale of the AR-15 at all. I don't have the data on the AR-15 sales prior to 2000 to prove this, but overall rifle sales did increase after the 1994 ban (including a bump in 1993 as the ban was being discussed), so I'm guessing that AR-15 sales also increased during the period of the ban. That would be consistent with my experience with that community around that time frame.

[Kevin Seitzer]

My point being, I don't think the old assault weapons ban did anything positive and re-upping it wouldn't help anything. I do think there is a host of legislation that should be considered as soon as Democrats have the power to do so. Figuring out how to craft legislation that would actually sharply curtail the sales of AR-15 rifles and potentially buy back the large inventory currently in the country would be an important part of that. Changing the cultural narrative around guns as a macho toy is important, too. I don't know if there's any way to go back to the era where rifles were treated with respect as dangerous tools that required training for proper use.

[In the Corn]

The lack of action by the Democrats on this from 2008-2010 when they had the majority in both chambers and Obama in the White House is just another indictment about how ineffective the Democrats were during those two years.

Interesting article: https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-...ngress-3367595

President Barack Obama's record on gun control is a fairly weak one, even though he was often portrayed as the "most anti-gun president in American history" and called for more regulations in the wake of the numerous mass shootings that occurred during his two terms in office

[Kevin Seitzer]

The lack of action by the Democrats on this from 2008-2010 when they had the majority in both chambers and Obama in the White House is just another indictment about how ineffective the Democrats were during those two years.

Interesting article: https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-...ngress-3367595

That was still a time period where Obama was trying to be bipartisan, and perhaps also focused on health care legislation, which took a lot of his legislative energies. You're saying he was mistaken to try to be bipartisan? I guess that is a correct lesson to draw, but it does seem sad that it is so. A lot of Obama's "tough on immigration" stance was similar, trying to reach across the aisle and give a little in hopes of forging cooperation on health care and other initiatives. Now that's thrown back as evidence that Democrats can sometimes be just as anti-immigrant as Republicans. Makes one despair for the hope of any bipartisan cooperation in the future. It's hard to urge Democrats to do it when you see what the results were the last time. (Merrick Garland being another sad example.)

I do think Democrats will be more "effective" if they win the presidency this time around, but it's going to be by ignoring Republican input, if they have learned any lessons from Obama.

[In the Corn]

That was still a time period where Obama was trying to be bipartisan, and perhaps also focused on health care legislation, which took a lot of his legislative energies. You're saying he was mistaken to try to be bipartisan? I guess that is a correct lesson to draw, but it does seem sad that it is so. A lot of Obama's "tough on immigration" stance was similar, trying to reach across the aisle and give a little in hopes of forging cooperation on health care and other initiatives. Now that's thrown back as evidence that Democrats can sometimes be just as anti-immigrant as Republicans. Makes one despair for the hope of any bipartisan cooperation in the future. It's hard to urge Democrats to do it when you see what the results were the last time. (Merrick Garland being another sad example.)

I do think Democrats will be more "effective" if they win the presidency this time around, but it's going to be by ignoring Republican input, if they have learned any lessons from Obama.

While Obama definitely wanted to be a uniter, it shouldn't have taken him too long to see that he was not going to get any response from the Republicans. He should have rammed down every piece of legislation he could, especially in year two. The problem was that Democrats were afraid they would loss seats (which they did), so they should have been "greedier" in the legislation.

[DMT]

While Obama definitely wanted to be a uniter, it shouldn't have taken him too long to see that he was not going to get any response from the Republicans. He should have rammed down every piece of legislation he could, especially in year two. The problem was that Democrats were afraid they would loss seats (which they did), so they should have been "greedier" in the legislation.

I agree with you but am somewhat surprised you would say that. Wouldn't that also provide more ammunition for the right-wing to highlight the attempted "socialist takeover" of America?

IMO the Trump Party has nothing positive to offer and the Democrats should be just as merciless and manipulative to forward their agenda if/when they take power as the Trump Party has been.

[In the Corn]

I agree with you but am somewhat surprised you would say that. Wouldn't that also provide more ammunition for the right-wing to highlight the attempted "socialist takeover" of America?

IMO the Trump Party has nothing positive to offer and the Democrats should be just as merciless and manipulative to forward their agenda if/when they take power as the Trump Party has been.

Oh, I totally agree with you. We could dig back through old posts, but I suggested when Hillary won she should push the most liberal judge she could find because of the Merrick Garland situation. It's unfortunate, we've become a tortured country that is governed by retribution of the party in charge for perceived misgivings in the past. It's ridiculous, but it's where we are.

[madducks]

In a matter of 6 seconds, a man with a shotgun under his jacket killed 2 people in a Texas church on Sunday before a member of the church security team killed the shooter. At the end of the video, you can see that several of the church members are armed. If not for the security guy (a good shot BTW) defending his church it would have been another mass shooting.

Note: after clicking play, click on "Youtube" in the lower right corner to remove the title heading from the top and an unobstructed view of the shooting at the top of the video.

[TranaGreg]

In a matter of 6 seconds, a man with a shotgun under his jacket killed 2 people in a Texas church on Sunday before a member of the church security team killed the shooter. At the end of the video, you can see that several of the church members are armed. If not for the security guy (a good shot BTW) defending his church it would have been another mass shooting.

Note: after clicking play, click on "Youtube" in the lower right corner to remove the title heading from the top and an unobstructed view of the shooting at the top of the video.

Youtube has removed the video.

[madducks]

Yeah, i should have known the unedited version wouldn't be allowed on Youtube. Here's an edited version along with the news report from ABC News.

[Gregg]

Yeah, i should have known the unedited version wouldn't be allowed on Youtube. Here's an edited version along with the news report from ABC News.

Jack Wilson is a hero even though he says he doesn't feel like one.

It is sad that it had to come to this, but it is good that the rest of the worshipers had a protector.

[madducks]

Jack Wilson is a hero even though he says he doesn't feel like one.

It is sad that it had to come to this, but it is good that the rest of the worshipers had a protector.

No wonder he was such a good shot. He's a shooting instructor. And he's also running for county commissioner. I think he just won that election.

[Gregg]

Excerpts taken from the Chicago Tribune:

Homicides fell below 500 last year in Chicago for the first since 2015, marking the third consecutive year of double-digit decreases, official Police Department statistics show.

The department said Wednesday that 492 people were killed last year, a 13% drop from 567 in 2018 and the fewest since 490 in 2015.

The number of shooting victims fell as well, though shy of double-digit levels. For the full year, 2,611 people were shot, an 8% decline from 2,838 in 2018, the department said. Shooting incidents fell to 2,151 last year, a 9.7% drop from 2,381 in 2018.

The continued drop in violence for 2019 marked a significant turnaround for Chicago from a disastrous 2016 when nearly 780 people were slain and more than 4,300 people shot, the most violent year in two decades.

Still, the city has far to go match New York City and Los Angeles despite each being more populous than Chicago. By contrast, NYC and L.A. totaled just over 1,800 shooting victims combined, far fewer than Chicago by itself, according to their latest figures. Through Dec. 22, New York has posted 311 homicides, while Los Angeles reported 252 homicides through Dec. 21.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Hmmmm, maybe it's those tough gun owner regulations everyone was saying didn't and wouldn't work a couple of years ago