I guess it didn't even merit a thread this time...

[BoSoxGal]

In Massachusetts you have to sit down with a local law enforcement officer as part of the process to get a firearms license - the license is required to own or possess any modern firearm (antique long guns are exempted) and to purchase ammunition of any kind. This local law enforcement officer is likely to have the ability to access information like whether you’d been suspended from school for a year for having a rape list and kill list of your fellow students and some adults - like the Dayton shooter. Massachusetts bans most assault weapons and any magazine with a capacity larger than 10 rounds. Bunch of other restrictions on modifications to firearms that make them more deadly and more likely intended for killing human beings.

Massachusetts has the lowest per capita rate of firearms deaths in the nation. We still have gun crime - we had a mass shooting the week of July 4th in Boston - but we’ve got a shitload less than ammosexual jurisdictions.

America, be more like Massachusetts - after all, you got started here.

[Bicycle Bill]

Why do mass shooters seem to gravitate to 'black rifles'?  A lot, I'm sure, has to do with image, as Big RR, Sue, and x-KA have already pointed out.  Ever since we saw newsreels of the grunts in 'Nam toting M-16s and the Eastern Bloc nations with their ubiquitous AK-47s, most people figured that these to be bad-ass weapons.  Now, (practically) anyone can buy an AR-15 or its look-alike from one of a couple dozen manufactures, so they can look like a bad-ass themselves — without bothering with the PT, the early-morning wakeups, and the commitment to their country's armed forces.

But I think the real reason is that the firearm manufacturers or aftermarket suppliers have not made 100-round magazines or 'bump stocks' for the first two weapons pictured above.

Not yet, anyway.

-"BB"-

[ex-khobar Andy]

A slightly competing view: (my bolding for emphasis)

JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Jan 1;177(1):106-119. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.7051.
Firearm Laws and Firearm Homicides: A Systematic Review.
Lee LK1, Fleegler EW1, Farrell C1, Avakame E2, Srinivasan S3, Hemenway D4, Monuteaux MC1.
Author information
Abstract
Importance:

Firearm homicide is a leading cause of injury death in the United States, and there is considerable debate over the effectiveness of firearm policies. An analysis of the effectiveness of firearm laws on firearm homicide is important to understand optimal policies to decrease firearm homicide in the United States.
Objective:

To evaluate the association between firearm laws and preventing firearm homicides in the United States.
Evidence Review:

We evaluated peer-reviewed articles from 1970 to 2016 focusing on the association between US firearm laws and firearm homicide. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, Lexis/Nexis, Sociological Abstracts, Academic Search Premier, the Index to Legal Periodicals and Books, and the references from the assembled articles. We divided laws into 5 categories: those that (1) curb gun trafficking, (2) strengthen background checks, (3) improve child safety, (4) ban military-style assault weapons, and (5) restrict firearms in public places and leniency in firearm carrying. The articles were assessed using the standardized Guide to Community Preventive Services data collection instrument and 5 additional quality metrics: (1) appropriate data source(s) and outcome measure(s) were used for the study, (2) the time frame studied was adequate, (3) appropriate statistical tests were used, (4) the analytic results were robust, and (5) the disaggregated results of control variables were consistent with the literature.
Findings:

In the aggregate, stronger gun policies were associated with decreased rates of firearm homicide, even after adjusting for demographic and sociologic factors. Laws that strengthen background checks and permit-to-purchase seemed to decrease firearm homicide rates. Specific laws directed at firearm trafficking, improving child safety, or the banning of military-style assault weapons were not associated with changes in firearm homicide rates. The evidence for laws restricting guns in public places and leniency in gun carrying was mixed.
Conclusions and Relevance:

The strength of firearm legislation in general, and laws related to strengthening background checks and permit-to-purchase in particular, is associated with decreased firearm homicide rates. High-quality research is important to further evaluate the effectiveness of these laws. Legislation is just 1 part of a multipronged approach that will be necessary to decrease firearm homicides in the United States.

I think it's probably valid to suggest that just banning 'assault weapons', whatever they are, isn't enough to put a real dent in the number of firearms deaths in the US. Mainly because the spectacular Las Vegas and Sandy Hook and Dayton and El Paso type events are relatively rare compared to the everyday hand gun incidents. Of course they grab the headlines much as a plane crash does; but planes which crash killing 200 people at a time might happen once or twice a year in the US while day in day out 100 people are killed by cars. So even in a bad year with a couple of major airline accidents, it's about 1% of road deaths. In the same way these high profile mass killings represent only a tiny fraction of total deaths; and a successful ban on these weapons, even if it managed to eliminate all the long gun asswipes, probably would not put a statistically significant kink in the numbers.

That is NOT to say that I don't favor a ban on these weapons. It's a start.

BTW in the abstract you copied, Sue, it's a Poisson model, not a Poison model. You copied it correctly - the error is in the original.

[Burning Petard]

Puzzled why this study began with 1970. Looks like cherry-picking data to me. Go back a hundred years. The federal law regulating sawed off shotguns and full auto machine guns was adopted back in the 1930's.(and supported by the NRA) Before that the only general legal requirement was to present the cash. For 'ordinary' pistols or long guns that remained the basic requirements up until at the shooting of JFK. After that there was a federal requirement for record keeping by dealers that was pretty basic. Much later there was a federal regulation on 'assault rifles' that was based mostly on what the device looked like. Creative marketers and merchants quickly learned to avoid things like bayonet mounts and beat that restriction. Regulators more or less gave up and said the real military rifles were ok as long as they were not full auto. But the individual back-ground checks for ownership became more and more restrictive. Domestic violence and illegal drug use will ban one from gun purchase at a dealer now.

From my non-peer reviewed anecdotal perception, greater regulation of private gun ownership has increased in tandem with greater gun violence. Perhaps there is valid research out there, but it is hard to find. The NRA is fond of citing a statistical study of fairly small geographical units that shows greater permits-to-carry-concealed is associated with lesser crime. That one has been pretty much shredded by careful real science. As far as I can tell the first mass killings of American school kids was in Michigan with dynamite.

Now we have the ultimate silliness from Congress-critter Toomey (Senate R-PA) that the AR15 and AK47 are too popular to regulate. Has anybody pointed out to him the popularity of cocaine?

snailgate

[MajGenl.Meade]

WASHINGTON — Following is the statement of Arthur C. Evans Jr., PhD, CEO of the American Psychological Association, in reaction to President Trump’s statements today regarding gun violence and mental illness:

“Blaming mental illness for the gun violence in our country is simplistic and inaccurate and goes against the scientific evidence currently available.

“The United States is a global outlier when it comes to horrific headlines like the ones that consumed us all weekend. Although the United States makes up less than 5% of the world’s population, we are home to 31% of all mass shooters globally, according to a CNN analysis. This difference is not explained by the rate of mental illness in the U.S.

“The one stark difference? Access to guns.

“Americans own nearly half of the estimated 650 million civilian-owned guns in the world. Access to this final, fatal tool means more deaths that occur more quickly, whether in a mass shooting or in someone’s own home.

“As we psychological scientists have said repeatedly, the overwhelming majority of people with mental illness are not violent. And there is no single personality profile that can reliably predict who will resort to gun violence. Based on the research, we know only that a history of violence is the single best predictor of who will commit future violence. And access to more guns, and deadlier guns, means more lives lost.

https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases ... x7BaTNts3Y

[Big RR]

But I think the real reason is that the firearm manufacturers or aftermarket suppliers have not made 100-round magazines or 'bump stocks' for the first two weapons pictured above.

I can't speak for bump stocks (and agree they should be banned from what I understand of them), but I wouldn't be surprised if all three used the same magazines (perhaps someone who knows guns could comment?). In any even, banning large capacity magazines does make sense IMHO bcause, functionally, they allow for more shots in a given period of time (due to not having to change them).

[Big RR]

But I think the real reason is that the firearm manufacturers or aftermarket suppliers have not made 100-round magazines or 'bump stocks' for the first two weapons pictured above.

I can't speak for bump stocks (and agree they should be banned from what I understand of them), but I wouldn't be surprised if all three used the same magazines (perhaps someone who knows guns could comment?). In any even, banning large capacity magazines does make sense IMHO bcause, functionally, they allow for more shots in a given period of time (due to not having to change them).

[RayThom]

"Moscow" Mitch is very sympathetic...

[Econoline]

[Big RR]

If it wasn't Trump in the picture, I would think the thumbs up was some sort of Dayton is OK or Dayton Strong exhibition, but Trump looks like such a putz with the beaming smile, that you can just tell it's all about him.

[RayThom]

Sad. With so much tragedy going on, you'd think the hospital staff would be professional enough to avoid the smiles and thumbs-up for the Orange Cheeto's photo-op.

This shit reinforces my feeling that our Grifter-in-Chief moves even closer to his second term in office. Educated Asian and black hospital employees seem to dote on the Alpha Molester.

Trump shares campaign-ad-style video with footage of visits to mass-shooting victims in Dayton and El Paso
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-c ... ims-2019-8

[Big RR]

Ray--just before they're in scrubs makes no statement about what their job it or how educated (or not) they are--they could be anything from physicians to floor cleaners, even the stethoscope around the one's neck could be nothing more than a prop. But the worst thing is, even taking all that into account, some people are willing to shill for him to get their 15 minutes of fame. And the cult of celebrity is also a big draw--it's the reason people will follow the Kardashians or go to places to see Snookie, even thought they show no talent or reason to be followed. Trump plays right into that--some people think (I would guess) he might be an ass, but he's a famous ass; or more likely, no one who is "famous" and has money could possible be an ass.

I really fear that he might well win reelection as well, even if he loses both houses of Congress.

[BoSoxGal]

The sad truth is that we are surrounded by good Nazis just like my cousins were in 1930s Germany; there are many among us, our neighbors and family and friends and coworkers, who will happily follow Trump wherever he takes them. I’ve studied too much history to believe otherwise - it could all happen again, and in the face of the ever exacerbating climate crisis, there will be plenty of excuses to persecute migrants and refugees and yes, eventually also those of us who stand up for them.

[Big RR]

I hope you're wrong; personally, I don't think trump has the intellect or personality to become such a figurehead, but who knows (and who knows what persons might be pulling his strings and feeding him the lines). All we can do is stand our ground and hope tha people take this election seriously enough to vte him out of office. I think this is possible, but then I thought Hillary would beat him.

[Scooter]

[BoSoxGal]

Here he is posing with with the orphaned baby whose parents were both slaughtered by the white supremacist who echoed his rhetoric. His people called the family and asked them to return to the hospital with the baby who’d already been discharged, so he could have this photo op. I cannot imagine what that family was thinking, or how this baby will feel when he sees this photo someday.

Trump has no soul.

[Econoline]

I'm willing to give Melania a pass because she's holding a baby (and smile is what you do when you've got a baby in your arms, especially if you're a woman and your last child is too big to cuddle anymore) and also because she has a smile and not a big shit-eating grin (hey, THUMBS UP!!!!! ) like her current hubby. Not sure what Tito from Colormaster Auto Body (the baby's uncle) is thinking; that might could be a nervous just-enough-to-be-polite smile. That other woman, whoever she is (the aunt? somebody from the hospital?) seems to be the only one with a sane, emotionally appropriate expression on her face...and the way baby Paul is looking at her, I think he might also realize this.

[Crackpot]

It’s one thing to smile another to be an insensitive jackass.

[BoSoxGal]

I hope you're wrong; personally, I don't think trump has the intellect or personality to become such a figurehead, but who knows (and who knows what persons might be pulling his strings and feeding him the lines). All we can do is stand our ground and hope tha people take this election seriously enough to vte him out of office. I think this is possible, but then I thought Hillary would beat him.

Hitler wasn’t all that smart

In terms of personality there’s a lot in common between Adolf and Donnie, and it’s a long established fact that one of the few books Trump ever read as a grown man was the copy of Hitler’s speeches he kept on the bedside table.

DJT doesn’t have a clue what’s going on at many of the federal agencies he appoints to; but like Hitler, he’s surrounded himself with soulless sycophants only too happy to stroke his ego to advance their own twisted agenda - cretins like Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon and Roger Stone, et al.

[rubato]

That is sick. That is so so so sick. Taking "photo-op" with the orphaned infant.

yrs,
rubato