Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NashvilleLefty

(811 posts)
Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:50 PM Jan 2013

Top 10 Myths About Mass Shootings

http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2012/12/18/top-10-myths-about-mass-shootings/

This is a really good article that exposes as myth talking points on both sides of the discussion. But I think it makes some really good points:

Of course, limiting the size of ammunition clips would at least force a gunman to pause to reload or switch weapons.


And;

In the immediate aftermath of the Newtown school shootings, there seems to be great momentum to establish policies and procedures designed to make us all safer. Sensible gun laws, affordable mental-health care, and reasonable security measures are all worthwhile, and would enhance the well being of millions of Americans. We shouldn’t, however, expect such efforts to take a big bite out of mass murder. Of course, a nibble or two would be reason enough.
18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Top 10 Myths About Mass Shootings (Original Post) NashvilleLefty Jan 2013 OP
You would think the "good guys" with guns would be all for limiting ammo capacity... JaneyVee Jan 2013 #1
Still, if there were no guns..... nt kelliekat44 Jan 2013 #2
No guns would be great for stopping mass shootings, ZombieHorde Jan 2013 #3
If there were no heroin, nobody would overdose on it Recursion Jan 2013 #7
Thre is ONE constant...... Bennyboy Jan 2013 #4
I could have worn loughner was a smoker. beevul Jan 2013 #5
Yes, but he smoked Salvia, not pot Electric Monk Jan 2013 #6
Because salvia is legal...... Bennyboy Jan 2013 #8
Anyone wanting to see just how badly salvia can mess you up need only check youtube Electric Monk Jan 2013 #11
I think a big myth is that assault weapons are typically used. Completely untrue though. OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #9
You make a good argument for implementing much tighter restrictions on semi-auto handgun ownership Electric Monk Jan 2013 #10
It absolutely is my intent. OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #12
The 2nd Amendment, you mean the one that reads NashvilleLefty Jan 2013 #14
I hove no problem with the honest regulation of some arms. OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #15
Fair enough! What would you suggest? NashvilleLefty Jan 2013 #17
Do you think your distinction makes any difference to anyone in Newtown CT? Unrepentant Fenian Jan 2013 #16
Do you think that a single event makes it OK to debate using the emotional appeal fallacy? OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #18
He does, doesn't he? Along with NashvilleLefty Jan 2013 #13
 

JaneyVee

(19,877 posts)
1. You would think the "good guys" with guns would be all for limiting ammo capacity...
Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:56 PM
Jan 2013

When you're hunkered down behind something looking to take a shot at a bad guy the best time would be when its time to reload. No one is peeking their head out while bullets are flying & ricocheting.

 

Bennyboy

(10,440 posts)
4. Thre is ONE constant......
Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:28 PM
Jan 2013

None of the shooters were pot smokers. Or had any history of pot smoking. Most don't have any history of illegal drug use and most have a history of prescription drug use.

The first thing I thought of after Columbine was man these kids need to get high. "Smoke a joint and chill the fuck out"......

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
5. I could have worn loughner was a smoker.
Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:58 PM
Jan 2013

Not that I think that matters much in his case or any other.



 

Bennyboy

(10,440 posts)
8. Because salvia is legal......
Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:34 AM
Jan 2013

And for all our lives we have been told that pot will ( "insert stupid shit here&quot and make people scared of it. Salvia has no such history and is LEGAL, so it must be okay right? Alcohol is okay?

 

Electric Monk

(13,869 posts)
11. Anyone wanting to see just how badly salvia can mess you up need only check youtube
Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:18 AM
Jan 2013

Here are just a few examples, there are many more





 

OneTenthofOnePercent

(6,268 posts)
9. I think a big myth is that assault weapons are typically used. Completely untrue though.
Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:54 AM
Jan 2013

A chart showing 20 years of mass murder incident gun usage as per a Mother-Jones article is below. Not only are "assault weapons" typically not used, they are in the minority compared to the sum of other weapons. This tells me two things:

a) Semiautomatic handguns make extremely competent/suitable weapons for mass shootings.
b) Even if Assault Weapons were physically ELIMINATED from society, semiautomatic handguns would be an extremely suitable substitute to carryout shooters intentions effectively, as evidenced by observation (a). Basically, very few mass shootings would be averted or possibly even mitigated by the absence of assault weapons.

 

Electric Monk

(13,869 posts)
10. You make a good argument for implementing much tighter restrictions on semi-auto handgun ownership
Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:57 AM
Jan 2013

though I'm sure that wasn't your intent.

 

OneTenthofOnePercent

(6,268 posts)
12. It absolutely is my intent.
Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:24 AM
Jan 2013

Assault weapons are easy to ban because they are a scary marginalized sect of firearm - I think only a small percent of people own them and their absence draws little pity from most normal people. And likewise, they make up an extremely small portion of total gun crime. Heck, revolvers and shotguns make up more deaths than Assault Weapons. On the flip side revolvers, shotguns and regular semiauto rifles/handguns probably make up 80%+ of privately owned guns.

SO here's my strategy: I'll point out the absurdity of your desire to cherry pick which guns you want to ban (based on logical reasoning of why you want a ban). You're kind will either have to:

A) Look like zealots/hypocrites not really interested in saving lives and tackling America's REAL gun problem (ie: you'll be portrayed as dishonest with ulterior motive)

B) Appear to be intellectually honest about it, and also go after guns that are EXTREMELY common and gun legislation that common (non gun nuts) people will easily oppose. Not only does this avenue quite a few constitutional/jdicial hrdles involved; it will be extremely unpopular.

This is absolutely my intent. It's called an ultimatum. I'm telling you all to go after the 2nd amendment wholesale with some sort of hail-mary piece of legislation... otherwise, you'll easily be painted as intellectually dishonest hypocrites. Nether strategy is a winner, but it's your choice.

NashvilleLefty

(811 posts)
14. The 2nd Amendment, you mean the one that reads
Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:33 AM
Jan 2013
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


We are not trying to do away with well regulated militias. We are not even trying to infringe the right to bear arms by the citizenry outside of well regulated militias. We are wanting to regulate SOME arms.

The 2nd Amendment does not at all apply to what most gun regulators support.
 

OneTenthofOnePercent

(6,268 posts)
15. I hove no problem with the honest regulation of some arms.
Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:56 AM
Jan 2013

The 2A does allow for some regulation. But if you're going to regulate SOME arms, just be sure to give a legitimate reason for the regulation of SOME arms. But when people pick certain guns and then give reasons for legislation which are inconsistent with the facts of reality don't get upset when people point that out and choose not to support such movements. Either draft/support legislation that is consistent with the facts & reality surrounding the reasoning for the legislation, or just be honest about the true reasoning for legislation being proposed. Honesty/straightforwardness is simple.

For example, when someone wants to solve America's gun problem with an Assault Weapons Ban, they require education about the facts showing assault weapons account for a teeny tiny fraction of gun deaths. The reason for the legislation does not match the legislative action. If they continue to push for such legislation under such a premise, I am either forced to assume they are either intellectually dishonest or stupid.

NashvilleLefty

(811 posts)
17. Fair enough! What would you suggest?
Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:04 AM
Jan 2013

I think that banning high-capacity magazines is a good start. Do you agree? What other legislation would you support?

I'm afraid that by not supporting ANY legislation, many people are supporting NO legislation.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Top 10 Myths About Mass S...