Pattern Ghost

New one up!
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1175.html

[De-snarked] Since you replied, I'll assume you actually want me to clarify things for you. I'll try to give you the short version, though I've posted this info before. So, here's my current thinking on the subject of firearms regulation in the US, in list format, and attempting a logical progression of ideas:
 
1. The right to self defense is a basic human right.
2. In order for one to be able to exercise this right, it may be necessary to use a weapon as a force multiplier.
3. In US law, the 2nd Amendment guarantees (the right) private (of the people) ownership (keep) and ability to carry around (bear) arms (weapons). This is upheld by DC vs Heller and McDonald vs. Chicago.
4. Also upheld is that self defense is included, and that the government cannot ban weapons commonly used in self defense. The Heller case determined that the total ban on handguns in DC was unconstitutional.
5. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Rights can be limited for the public good.
6. When considering gun control as an option, it's important that any new laws don't infringe on any of the above. 
7. Any new law (for anything) should be effective, not a feel good measure, not a political posturing.
8. We do not have a general "gun violence" problem in the US that needs to be addressed by gun legislation. The numbers and statistics bear out that the vast majority of gun violence is concentrated in small areas and that the vast majority of gun violence is criminal on criminal.
9. Suicide rates aren't affected by the availability of firearms.
10. This leaves the trend of mass public shootings (those not related to gang activity) we have in the US as the final major area of concerns as it pertains to US gun violence.
10a. Gun control doesn't play a useful role in preventing these events. Prevention has to take a different form, and we still haven't gotten the tools nor the compliance in reporting and enforcement to the level they need to be at. Red flag laws might be effective, though, and some may place them under the gun control umbrella. I see them as interventional, and as long as there are sufficient (if unfortunately post-facto) due process protections in the red flag laws, I don't have a major issue with them.
10b. Gun control might be worth considering in addressing part of the problem of mitigation of these events. There are other areas that still need consideration as part of mitigation, including improving police responses to mass shootings. We're getting there, but it's going to take time for departments to be pushed into putting good resource officers (like the SWAT team member who eliminated a school shooter) in place instead of cowards.
10c. TIME is the most critical factor in mitigating mass shooting casualties. The area needs to be clear to bring in medical aid as quickly as possible. This is fundamental to trauma care.
 
Now, let's look at [De-snarked] Rifles vs pistols.
 
Rifles send bullets into a body with massive kinetic energy. Not only does the projectile tear through tissue in its path, but the hydrostatic shock from a rifle round is sufficient to destroy tissue, including organ tissue.
 
Handguns of any non-magnum caliber simply drill a hole through tissue, crushing tissue in their path. They typically have poor expansion compared to rifles, so even if the caliber (diameter) of the bullet and weight are the the same or greater than a rifle round, they crush considerably less tissue. Hydrostatic shock from handguns creates a temporary wound cavity that's not sufficient to tear tissue. Tissues stretch and rebound.
 
So, as another document from our activist AG here in WA that I posted way upthread points out: Patients shot in an organ with a handgun end up with an operable wound that's basically a hole in the organ. Those shot in the same organ with a rifle have a destroyed organ.
 
Now, let's look at the problem of limiting the tools of mass shooters in such a way that it helps mitigate the damage they can do, while still preserving the ability of an ordinary citizen to defend themselves. Oh, and don't get confused here and think that I'm talking about general gun control or gun safety measures, like safe storage so that unauthorized persons can't get their hands on a relative or friend's weapon. I am specifically talking about limitations on the tools themselves.
 
The old Assault Weapon Ban limited guns based on their features. These were largely cosmetic or ergonomic in nature, and therefore stupidly easy to engineer around. There was also a magazine capacity limitation component, down to 10 rounds. Pre-existing firearms and magazines were grandfathered in. So, once the law was announced people stocked up. And they've been stocking up ever since.
 
In my professional opinion, the main feature that we should be looking at in regards to mitigation (keeping in mind, I don't believe we should look here first, but that I never said we shouldn't look here . . . one of your apparent points of confusion in the above quote) is the magazine capacity. Now, in that reply you quoted to Old Man, he had said he'd limit both pistols and rifles to single digit magazine capacities. Let's break that down.
 
Does limiting magazine capacities to this low number make the tool so ineffective for self defense that it infringes on that aspect of someone's rights? For a rifle, not so much. For a handgun, possibly. Now, why would I say that?
 
Well, the goal of a self defense shooting is to stop the attack. Period. If someone has the means, motive and opportunity to kill you or do you great bodily harm, you have the right to engage them with lethal force. But although the force is lethal, the goal of its employment is to prevent harm to the victim. So, how does that work?
 
In an ideal world, the presence of the firearm makes the assailant reconsider his life's choices an leave.
 
Next best outcome is that a wound is inflicted, which is non-fatal but makes the assailant stop attacking.

These are both called psychological stops. The assailant has only stopped the assault because they have decided for themselves to stop the assault. What if they don't? Then you need a mechanical stop. That means your shot has inflicted enough damage to cause loss of consciousness or ability to act by either blood loss, shock, or a direct CNS hit.
 
So, this [De-snarked] is the difference between limiting capacities of rifles and pistols: Rifles are very good at creating a mechanical stop. You don't need a very large capacity magazine in most self defense situations calling for a mechanical stop for a rifle to get the job done. Pistols, on the other hand, suck at achieving mechanical stops. You need to bring as many rounds to the fight as you possibly can if you're using a pistol for self defense. Limiting the capacity of a service caliber handgun (9mm, .40S/W, .45ACP, .38SPL) severely limits its ability to effect a mechanical stop.
 
So, why is it OK to let potential mass shooters have higher round counts in pistols? Because you have other components to mitigation. Barring a CNS hit, the vast majority of pistol shooting victims (upward of 80%) survive if given prompt medical treatment. It is TIME that is larger factor in handgun shootings.
 
I hope this answers your question.
 
EDIT: It's close to my bed time, and on a re-read it seems my natural sarcasm has rendered some parts of this post as snarky. My apologies for that, and I'll go back over it and de-snark it later, after I've had some sleep.

You know, on a similar vein to Simon's post about terminology, I have a pet peeve. A lot of gun writers, and posters on gun forums, refer to criminals as "goblins" or the like. As in, "That guy shot two goblins who broke into his house. Good riddance." That really  bothers me. If you aren't mature enough to deal with the fact that you may kill another human in self defense if you chose a firearm for the purpose, then you're probably not mature enough to own a gun. I think this originated with ex-military gun writers, who go back to old school dehumanization tactics as part of their indoctrination. My generation didn't get that so much, but go not too far back and you're into the era of referring to enemy combatants by racial or ethnic slurs. Which is just distasteful.

[De-snarked] Since you replied, I'll assume you actually want me to clarify things for you. I'll try to give you the short version, though I've posted this info before. So, here's my current thinking on the subject of firearms regulation in the US, in list format, and attempting a logical progression of ideas:
 
1. The right to self defense is a basic human right.
2. In order for one to be able to exercise this right, it may be necessary to use a weapon as a force multiplier.
3. In US law, the 2nd Amendment guarantees (the right) private (of the people) ownership (keep) and ability to carry around (bear) arms (weapons). This is upheld by DC vs Heller and McDonald vs. Chicago.
4. Also upheld is that self defense is included, and that the government cannot ban weapons commonly used in self defense. The Heller case determined that the total ban on handguns in DC was unconstitutional.
5. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Rights can be limited for the public good.
6. When considering gun control as an option, it's important that any new laws don't infringe on any of the above. 
7. Any new law (for anything) should be effective, not a feel good measure, not a political posturing.
8. We do not have a general "gun violence" problem in the US that needs to be addressed by gun legislation. The numbers and statistics bear out that the vast majority of gun violence is concentrated in small areas and that the vast majority of gun violence is criminal on criminal.
9. Suicide rates aren't affected by the availability of firearms.
10. This leaves the trend of mass public shootings (those not related to gang activity) we have in the US as the final major area of concerns as it pertains to US gun violence.
10a. Gun control doesn't play a useful role in preventing these events. Prevention has to take a different form, and we still haven't gotten the tools nor the compliance in reporting and enforcement to the level they need to be at. Red flag laws might be effective, though, and some may place them under the gun control umbrella. I see them as interventional, and as long as there are sufficient (if unfortunately post-facto) due process protections in the red flag laws, I don't have a major issue with them.
10b. Gun control might be worth considering in addressing part of the problem of mitigation of these events. There are other areas that still need consideration as part of mitigation, including improving police responses to mass shootings. We're getting there, but it's going to take time for departments to be pushed into putting good resource officers (like the SWAT team member who eliminated a school shooter) in place instead of cowards.
10c. TIME is the most critical factor in mitigating mass shooting casualties. The area needs to be clear to bring in medical aid as quickly as possible. This is fundamental to trauma care.
 
Now, let's look at [De-snarked] Rifles vs pistols.
 
Rifles send bullets into a body with massive kinetic energy. Not only does the projectile tear through tissue in its path, but the hydrostatic shock from a rifle round is sufficient to destroy tissue, including organ tissue.
 
Handguns of any non-magnum caliber simply drill a hole through tissue, crushing tissue in their path. They typically have poor expansion compared to rifles, so even if the caliber (diameter) of the bullet and weight are the the same or greater than a rifle round, they crush considerably less tissue. Hydrostatic shock from handguns creates a temporary wound cavity that's not sufficient to tear tissue. Tissues stretch and rebound.
 
So, as another document from our activist AG here in WA that I posted way upthread points out: Patients shot in an organ with a handgun end up with an operable wound that's basically a hole in the organ. Those shot in the same organ with a rifle have a destroyed organ.
 
Now, let's look at the problem of limiting the tools of mass shooters in such a way that it helps mitigate the damage they can do, while still preserving the ability of an ordinary citizen to defend themselves. Oh, and don't get confused here and think that I'm talking about general gun control or gun safety measures, like safe storage so that unauthorized persons can't get their hands on a relative or friend's weapon. I am specifically talking about limitations on the tools themselves.
 
The old Assault Weapon Ban limited guns based on their features. These were largely cosmetic or ergonomic in nature, and therefore stupidly easy to engineer around. There was also a magazine capacity limitation component, down to 10 rounds. Pre-existing firearms and magazines were grandfathered in. So, once the law was announced people stocked up. And they've been stocking up ever since.
 
In my professional opinion, the main feature that we should be looking at in regards to mitigation (keeping in mind, I don't believe we should look here first, but that I never said we shouldn't look here . . . one of your apparent points of confusion in the above quote) is the magazine capacity. Now, in that reply you quoted to Old Man, he had said he'd limit both pistols and rifles to single digit magazine capacities. Let's break that down.
 
Does limiting magazine capacities to this low number make the tool so ineffective for self defense that it infringes on that aspect of someone's rights? For a rifle, not so much. For a handgun, possibly. Now, why would I say that?
 
Well, the goal of a self defense shooting is to stop the attack. Period. If someone has the means, motive and opportunity to kill you or do you great bodily harm, you have the right to engage them with lethal force. But although the force is lethal, the goal of its employment is to prevent harm to the victim. So, how does that work?
 
In an ideal world, the presence of the firearm makes the assailant reconsider his life's choices an leave.
 
Next best outcome is that a wound is inflicted, which is non-fatal but makes the assailant stop attacking.

These are both called psychological stops. The assailant has only stopped the assault because they have decided for themselves to stop the assault. What if they don't? Then you need a mechanical stop. That means your shot has inflicted enough damage to cause loss of consciousness or ability to act by either blood loss, shock, or a direct CNS hit.
 
So, this [De-snarked] is the difference between limiting capacities of rifles and pistols: Rifles are very good at creating a mechanical stop. You don't need a very large capacity magazine in most self defense situations calling for a mechanical stop for a rifle to get the job done. Pistols, on the other hand, suck at achieving mechanical stops. You need to bring as many rounds to the fight as you possibly can if you're using a pistol for self defense. Limiting the capacity of a service caliber handgun (9mm, .40S/W, .45ACP, .38SPL) severely limits its ability to effect a mechanical stop.
 
So, why is it OK to let potential mass shooters have higher round counts in pistols? Because you have other components to mitigation. Barring a CNS hit, the vast majority of pistol shooting victims (upward of 80%) survive if given prompt medical treatment. It is TIME that is larger factor in handgun shootings.
 
I hope this answers your question.
 
EDIT: It's close to my bed time, and on a re-read it seems my natural sarcasm has rendered some parts of this post as snarky. My apologies for that, and I'll go back over it and de-snark it later, after I've had some sleep.

[De-snarked] Since you replied, I'll assume you actually want me to clarify things for you. I'll try to give you the short version, though I've posted this info before. So, here's my current thinking on the subject of firearms regulation in the US, in list format, and attempting a logical progression of ideas:
 
1. The right to self defense is a basic human right.
2. In order for one to be able to exercise this right, it may be necessary to use a weapon as a force multiplier.
3. In US law, the 2nd Amendment guarantees (the right) private (of the people) ownership (keep) and ability to carry around (bear) arms (weapons). This is upheld by DC vs Heller and McDonald vs. Chicago.
4. Also upheld is that self defense is included, and that the government cannot ban weapons commonly used in self defense. The Heller case determined that the total ban on handguns in DC was unconstitutional.
5. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Rights can be limited for the public good.
6. When considering gun control as an option, it's important that any new laws don't infringe on any of the above. 
7. Any new law (for anything) should be effective, not a feel good measure, not a political posturing.
8. We do not have a general "gun violence" problem in the US that needs to be addressed by gun legislation. The numbers and statistics bear out that the vast majority of gun violence is concentrated in small areas and that the vast majority of gun violence is criminal on criminal.
9. Suicide rates aren't affected by the availability of firearms.
10. This leaves the trend of mass public shootings (those not related to gang activity) we have in the US as the final major area of concerns as it pertains to US gun violence.
10a. Gun control doesn't play a useful role in preventing these events. Prevention has to take a different form, and we still haven't gotten the tools nor the compliance in reporting and enforcement to the level they need to be at. Red flag laws might be effective, though, and some may place them under the gun control umbrella. I see them as interventional, and as long as there are sufficient (if unfortunately post-facto) due process protections in the red flag laws, I don't have a major issue with them.
10b. Gun control might be worth considering in addressing part of the problem of mitigation of these events. There are other areas that still need consideration as part of mitigation, including improving police responses to mass shootings. We're getting there, but it's going to take time for departments to be pushed into putting good resource officers (like the SWAT team member who eliminated a school shooter) in place instead of cowards.
10c. TIME is the most critical factor in mitigating mass shooting casualties. The area needs to be clear to bring in medical aid as quickly as possible. This is fundamental to trauma care.
 
Now, let's look at [De-snarked] Rifles vs pistols.
 
Rifles send bullets into a body with massive kinetic energy. Not only does the projectile tear through tissue in its path, but the hydrostatic shock from a rifle round is sufficient to destroy tissue, including organ tissue.
 
Handguns of any non-magnum caliber simply drill a hole through tissue, crushing tissue in their path. They typically have poor expansion compared to rifles, so even if the caliber (diameter) of the bullet and weight are the the same or greater than a rifle round, they crush considerably less tissue. Hydrostatic shock from handguns creates a temporary wound cavity that's not sufficient to tear tissue. Tissues stretch and rebound.
 
So, as another document from our activist AG here in WA that I posted way upthread points out: Patients shot in an organ with a handgun end up with an operable wound that's basically a hole in the organ. Those shot in the same organ with a rifle have a destroyed organ.
 
Now, let's look at the problem of limiting the tools of mass shooters in such a way that it helps mitigate the damage they can do, while still preserving the ability of an ordinary citizen to defend themselves. Oh, and don't get confused here and think that I'm talking about general gun control or gun safety measures, like safe storage so that unauthorized persons can't get their hands on a relative or friend's weapon. I am specifically talking about limitations on the tools themselves.
 
The old Assault Weapon Ban limited guns based on their features. These were largely cosmetic or ergonomic in nature, and therefore stupidly easy to engineer around. There was also a magazine capacity limitation component, down to 10 rounds. Pre-existing firearms and magazines were grandfathered in. So, once the law was announced people stocked up. And they've been stocking up ever since.
 
In my professional opinion, the main feature that we should be looking at in regards to mitigation (keeping in mind, I don't believe we should look here first, but that I never said we shouldn't look here . . . one of your apparent points of confusion in the above quote) is the magazine capacity. Now, in that reply you quoted to Old Man, he had said he'd limit both pistols and rifles to single digit magazine capacities. Let's break that down.
 
Does limiting magazine capacities to this low number make the tool so ineffective for self defense that it infringes on that aspect of someone's rights? For a rifle, not so much. For a handgun, possibly. Now, why would I say that?
 
Well, the goal of a self defense shooting is to stop the attack. Period. If someone has the means, motive and opportunity to kill you or do you great bodily harm, you have the right to engage them with lethal force. But although the force is lethal, the goal of its employment is to prevent harm to the victim. So, how does that work?
 
In an ideal world, the presence of the firearm makes the assailant reconsider his life's choices an leave.
 
Next best outcome is that a wound is inflicted, which is non-fatal but makes the assailant stop attacking.

These are both called psychological stops. The assailant has only stopped the assault because they have decided for themselves to stop the assault. What if they don't? Then you need a mechanical stop. That means your shot has inflicted enough damage to cause loss of consciousness or ability to act by either blood loss, shock, or a direct CNS hit.
 
So, this [De-snarked] is the difference between limiting capacities of rifles and pistols: Rifles are very good at creating a mechanical stop. You don't need a very large capacity magazine in most self defense situations calling for a mechanical stop for a rifle to get the job done. Pistols, on the other hand, suck at achieving mechanical stops. You need to bring as many rounds to the fight as you possibly can if you're using a pistol for self defense. Limiting the capacity of a service caliber handgun (9mm, .40S/W, .45ACP, .38SPL) severely limits its ability to effect a mechanical stop.
 
So, why is it OK to let potential mass shooters have higher round counts in pistols? Because you have other components to mitigation. Barring a CNS hit, the vast majority of pistol shooting victims (upward of 80%) survive if given prompt medical treatment. It is TIME that is larger factor in handgun shootings.
 
I hope this answers your question.
 
EDIT: It's close to my bed time, and on a re-read it seems my natural sarcasm has rendered some parts of this post as snarky. My apologies for that, and I'll go back over it and de-snark it later, after I've had some sleep.

[De-snarked] Since you replied, I'll assume you actually want me to clarify things for you. I'll try to give you the short version, though I've posted this info before. So, here's my current thinking on the subject of firearms regulation in the US, in list format, and attempting a logical progression of ideas:
 
1. The right to self defense is a basic human right.
2. In order for one to be able to exercise this right, it may be necessary to use a weapon as a force multiplier.
3. In US law, the 2nd Amendment guarantees (the right) private (of the people) ownership (keep) and ability to carry around (bear) arms (weapons). This is upheld by DC vs Heller and McDonald vs. Chicago.
4. Also upheld is that self defense is included, and that the government cannot ban weapons commonly used in self defense. The Heller case determined that the total ban on handguns in DC was unconstitutional.
5. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Rights can be limited for the public good.
6. When considering gun control as an option, it's important that any new laws don't infringe on any of the above. 
7. Any new law (for anything) should be effective, not a feel good measure, not a political posturing.
8. We do not have a general "gun violence" problem in the US that needs to be addressed by gun legislation. The numbers and statistics bear out that the vast majority of gun violence is concentrated in small areas and that the vast majority of gun violence is criminal on criminal.
9. Suicide rates aren't affected by the availability of firearms.
10. This leaves the trend of mass public shootings (those not related to gang activity) we have in the US as the final major area of concerns as it pertains to US gun violence.
10a. Gun control doesn't play a useful role in preventing these events. Prevention has to take a different form, and we still haven't gotten the tools nor the compliance in reporting and enforcement to the level they need to be at. Red flag laws might be effective, though, and some may place them under the gun control umbrella. I see them as interventional, and as long as there are sufficient (if unfortunately post-facto) due process protections in the red flag laws, I don't have a major issue with them.
10b. Gun control might be worth considering in addressing part of the problem of mitigation of these events. There are other areas that still need consideration as part of mitigation, including improving police responses to mass shootings. We're getting there, but it's going to take time for departments to be pushed into putting good resource officers (like the SWAT team member who eliminated a school shooter) in place instead of cowards.
10c. TIME is the most critical factor in mitigating mass shooting casualties. The area needs to be clear to bring in medical aid as quickly as possible. This is fundamental to trauma care.
 
Now, let's look at [De-snarked] Rifles vs pistols.
 
Rifles send bullets into a body with massive kinetic energy. Not only does the projectile tear through tissue in its path, but the hydrostatic shock from a rifle round is sufficient to destroy tissue, including organ tissue.
 
Handguns of any non-magnum caliber simply drill a hole through tissue, crushing tissue in their path. They typically have poor expansion compared to rifles, so even if the caliber (diameter) of the bullet and weight are the the same or greater than a rifle round, they crush considerably less tissue. Hydrostatic shock from handguns creates a temporary wound cavity that's not sufficient to tear tissue. Tissues stretch and rebound.
 
So, as another document from our activist AG here in WA that I posted way upthread points out: Patients shot in an organ with a handgun end up with an operable wound that's basically a hole in the organ. Those shot in the same organ with a rifle have a destroyed organ.
 
Now, let's look at the problem of limiting the tools of mass shooters in such a way that it helps mitigate the damage they can do, while still preserving the ability of an ordinary citizen to defend themselves. Oh, and don't get confused here and think that I'm talking about general gun control or gun safety measures, like safe storage so that unauthorized persons can't get their hands on a relative or friend's weapon. I am specifically talking about limitations on the tools themselves.
 
The old Assault Weapon Ban limited guns based on their features. These were largely cosmetic or ergonomic in nature, and therefore stupidly easy to engineer around. There was also a magazine capacity limitation component, down to 10 rounds. Pre-existing firearms and magazines were grandfathered in. So, once the law was announced people stocked up. And they've been stocking up ever since.
 
In my professional opinion, the main feature that we should be looking at in regards to mitigation (keeping in mind, I don't believe we should look here first, but that I never said we shouldn't look here . . . one of your apparent points of confusion in the above quote) is the magazine capacity. Now, in that reply you quoted to Old Man, he had said he'd limit both pistols and rifles to single digit magazine capacities. Let's break that down.
 
Does limiting magazine capacities to this low number make the tool so ineffective for self defense that it infringes on that aspect of someone's rights? For a rifle, not so much. For a handgun, possibly. Now, why would I say that?
 
Well, the goal of a self defense shooting is to stop the attack. Period. If someone has the means, motive and opportunity to kill you or do you great bodily harm, you have the right to engage them with lethal force. But although the force is lethal, the goal of its employment is to prevent harm to the victim. So, how does that work?
 
In an ideal world, the presence of the firearm makes the assailant reconsider his life's choices an leave.
 
Next best outcome is that a wound is inflicted, which is non-fatal but makes the assailant stop attacking.

These are both called psychological stops. The assailant has only stopped the assault because they have decided for themselves to stop the assault. What if they don't? Then you need a mechanical stop. That means your shot has inflicted enough damage to cause loss of consciousness or ability to act by either blood loss, shock, or a direct CNS hit.
 
So, this [De-snarked] is the difference between limiting capacities of rifles and pistols: Rifles are very good at creating a mechanical stop. You don't need a very large capacity magazine in most self defense situations calling for a mechanical stop for a rifle to get the job done. Pistols, on the other hand, suck at achieving mechanical stops. You need to bring as many rounds to the fight as you possibly can if you're using a pistol for self defense. Limiting the capacity of a service caliber handgun (9mm, .40S/W, .45ACP, .38SPL) severely limits its ability to effect a mechanical stop.
 
So, why is it OK to let potential mass shooters have higher round counts in pistols? Because you have other components to mitigation. Barring a CNS hit, the vast majority of pistol shooting victims (upward of 80%) survive if given prompt medical treatment. It is TIME that is larger factor in handgun shootings.
 
I hope this answers your question.
 
EDIT: It's close to my bed time, and on a re-read it seems my natural sarcasm has rendered some parts of this post as snarky. My apologies for that, and I'll go back over it and de-snark it later, after I've had some sleep.

[De-snarked] Since you replied, I'll assume you actually want me to clarify things for you. I'll try to give you the short version, though I've posted this info before. So, here's my current thinking on the subject of firearms regulation in the US, in list format, and attempting a logical progression of ideas:
 
1. The right to self defense is a basic human right.
2. In order for one to be able to exercise this right, it may be necessary to use a weapon as a force multiplier.
3. In US law, the 2nd Amendment guarantees (the right) private (of the people) ownership (keep) and ability to carry around (bear) arms (weapons). This is upheld by DC vs Heller and McDonald vs. Chicago.
4. Also upheld is that self defense is included, and that the government cannot ban weapons commonly used in self defense. The Heller case determined that the total ban on handguns in DC was unconstitutional.
5. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Rights can be limited for the public good.
6. When considering gun control as an option, it's important that any new laws don't infringe on any of the above. 
7. Any new law (for anything) should be effective, not a feel good measure, not a political posturing.
8. We do not have a general "gun violence" problem in the US that needs to be addressed by gun legislation. The numbers and statistics bear out that the vast majority of gun violence is concentrated in small areas and that the vast majority of gun violence is criminal on criminal.
9. Suicide rates aren't affected by the availability of firearms.
10. This leaves the trend of mass public shootings (those not related to gang activity) we have in the US as the final major area of concerns as it pertains to US gun violence.
10a. Gun control doesn't play a useful role in preventing these events. Prevention has to take a different form, and we still haven't gotten the tools nor the compliance in reporting and enforcement to the level they need to be at. Red flag laws might be effective, though, and some may place them under the gun control umbrella. I see them as interventional, and as long as there are sufficient (if unfortunately post-facto) due process protections in the red flag laws, I don't have a major issue with them.
10b. Gun control might be worth considering in addressing part of the problem of mitigation of these events. There are other areas that still need consideration as part of mitigation, including improving police responses to mass shootings. We're getting there, but it's going to take time for departments to be pushed into putting good resource officers (like the SWAT team member who eliminated a school shooter) in place instead of cowards.
10c. TIME is the most critical factor in mitigating mass shooting casualties. The area needs to be clear to bring in medical aid as quickly as possible. This is fundamental to trauma care.
 
Now, let's look at [De-snarked] Rifles vs pistols.
 
Rifles send bullets into a body with massive kinetic energy. Not only does the projectile tear through tissue in its path, but the hydrostatic shock from a rifle round is sufficient to destroy tissue, including organ tissue.
 
Handguns of any non-magnum caliber simply drill a hole through tissue, crushing tissue in their path. They typically have poor expansion compared to rifles, so even if the caliber (diameter) of the bullet and weight are the the same or greater than a rifle round, they crush considerably less tissue. Hydrostatic shock from handguns creates a temporary wound cavity that's not sufficient to tear tissue. Tissues stretch and rebound.
 
So, as another document from our activist AG here in WA that I posted way upthread points out: Patients shot in an organ with a handgun end up with an operable wound that's basically a hole in the organ. Those shot in the same organ with a rifle have a destroyed organ.
 
Now, let's look at the problem of limiting the tools of mass shooters in such a way that it helps mitigate the damage they can do, while still preserving the ability of an ordinary citizen to defend themselves. Oh, and don't get confused here and think that I'm talking about general gun control or gun safety measures, like safe storage so that unauthorized persons can't get their hands on a relative or friend's weapon. I am specifically talking about limitations on the tools themselves.
 
The old Assault Weapon Ban limited guns based on their features. These were largely cosmetic or ergonomic in nature, and therefore stupidly easy to engineer around. There was also a magazine capacity limitation component, down to 10 rounds. Pre-existing firearms and magazines were grandfathered in. So, once the law was announced people stocked up. And they've been stocking up ever since.
 
In my professional opinion, the main feature that we should be looking at in regards to mitigation (keeping in mind, I don't believe we should look here first, but that I never said we shouldn't look here . . . one of your apparent points of confusion in the above quote) is the magazine capacity. Now, in that reply you quoted to Old Man, he had said he'd limit both pistols and rifles to single digit magazine capacities. Let's break that down.
 
Does limiting magazine capacities to this low number make the tool so ineffective for self defense that it infringes on that aspect of someone's rights? For a rifle, not so much. For a handgun, possibly. Now, why would I say that?
 
Well, the goal of a self defense shooting is to stop the attack. Period. If someone has the means, motive and opportunity to kill you or do you great bodily harm, you have the right to engage them with lethal force. But although the force is lethal, the goal of its employment is to prevent harm to the victim. So, how does that work?
 
In an ideal world, the presence of the firearm makes the assailant reconsider his life's choices an leave.
 
Next best outcome is that a wound is inflicted, which is non-fatal but makes the assailant stop attacking.

These are both called psychological stops. The assailant has only stopped the assault because they have decided for themselves to stop the assault. What if they don't? Then you need a mechanical stop. That means your shot has inflicted enough damage to cause loss of consciousness or ability to act by either blood loss, shock, or a direct CNS hit.
 
So, this [De-snarked] is the difference between limiting capacities of rifles and pistols: Rifles are very good at creating a mechanical stop. You don't need a very large capacity magazine in most self defense situations calling for a mechanical stop for a rifle to get the job done. Pistols, on the other hand, suck at achieving mechanical stops. You need to bring as many rounds to the fight as you possibly can if you're using a pistol for self defense. Limiting the capacity of a service caliber handgun (9mm, .40S/W, .45ACP, .38SPL) severely limits its ability to effect a mechanical stop.
 
So, why is it OK to let potential mass shooters have higher round counts in pistols? Because you have other components to mitigation. Barring a CNS hit, the vast majority of pistol shooting victims (upward of 80%) survive if given prompt medical treatment. It is TIME that is larger factor in handgun shootings.
 
I hope this answers your question.
 
EDIT: It's close to my bed time, and on a re-read it seems my natural sarcasm has rendered some parts of this post as snarky. My apologies for that, and I'll go back over it and de-snark it later, after I've had some sleep.

Look, when I play with my little green army men they mostly only have rifles.  You can't use the fancy bazooka guy as your standard!

When it comes to mass shootings, I think the definite uptick in them is coming from the intersection of gun availability plus widespread coverage of the identity of the shooter on social media and mass media.
 
As cell phones have become ubiquitous and people are living for their social media accounts, committing a mass shooting is the fastest way for some nobody to become a somebody.
 
As of this point, I haven't seen an official study showing a correlation. But I've seen charts showing cell phone and social media usage skyrocketing. And I've seen other charts showing mass shooting since Columbine increasing significantly over the same time frame.
 
I don't think it's a leap at all to conclude that there's some connection. A lot of these people leave a manifesto or video which they're hoping will go viral after they die. And, for the most part, they're going into this knowing they're going to die. This whole phenomena is an elaborate suicide ritual which is designed as a last gasp "Look at me! I'm important!"
 
The thing which has changed in the US in recent years isn't the availability of guns. That hasn't changed. What's changed is that lunatic people now know that committing a mass shooting will make them a household name across the country. Your name on the evening news has never been a huge deal because not many people watch the evening news. But getting your name to go viral on social media puts your name in front of almost everyone's face.
 
I think it's vaguely possible to confront the situation by confiscating guns. If you do it thoroughly enough, lunatics would need serious criminal connections to get their hands on guns. But that's a massive undertaking, even if you ignore the legal hurdles, because of the number of guns and the vast amount of ammunition.
 
I think a more easy method to address the problem is to have a total media blackout on the identity of the shooter. The name/photo doesn't go out on the news but all media are made aware of the shooter's identity. Social media platforms change their terms of service so that names/photos of shooters can't be posted and mention of a shooter's name gets the post erased and possibly your account banned.
 
You can talk about the crime itself but not give publicity to the shooter himself.
 
At the least, it'd be a much easier tweak than confiscating a significant fraction of the guns in the country. And if a media blackout on shooter's identities didn't have a measurable effect on the rate of mass shootings after a few years, you could easily stop doing it and return to the way things were before.

Regarding Hermit's mention of the moon landing:
 
The "Chasing the Moon" series on PBS included bits of newsreel footage about the Apollo astronauts' world tour afterward. (Which the Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins hated. Not into PR, them.) But the scenes of crowds cheering the motorcade in, IIRC, India, featured people holding up signs proclaiming, "We Did It!" Apparently a lot of people took that "For All Mankind" talk seriously and indeed saw reaching the moon as a universal human achievement.
 
That the US government presented the moon landing in this way, instead of crowing "Ha Ha We Great U Suck," was a fairly remarkable achievement in itself. Or at least it seems that way now. Unfortunately, I can't see any such emotional generosity it happening anytime soon.
 
Dean Shomshak

My actual view on the issue is that we need federally funded, unrestricted scientific research on all aspects--how criminals acquire guns, characteristics of mass shooters, medical aspects of the issue, etc.  I think existing research is wholly inadequate and tends to be cherry-picked by both sides without proper scrutiny of methodology.  We need peer-reviewed scientific, medical and social science research on all aspects of the problem, so that policy-makers can make informed decisions using the best data available.  

I'd propose that national standardization of incident reporting be funded at the Federal level, and all relevant agencies and organizations required to comply with reporting. Then anyone who wished would have a uniform data to study. And, sure, the CDC would be included. I just think uniform data should be the first priority.

And how many gun homicides are committed "in the heat of the moment," vs. say, for economic reasons? I figure there are a couple of major reasons for homicides, and the biggest two categories are personal vs. economic. Catch your wife cheating on you with the pool boy and kill them in reprisal? Personal. Shoot into a crowd of rival gang members in the parking lot of a corner store because they're impinging on your turf? Economic.
 
It'd be interesting to actually analyze this type of stuff and break down causes into workable categories that can be dealt with. I don't know if any stats for this are already available. My gut and personal experience/training tells me that economically-motivated homicides should outweigh the personal by a wide margin. People simply aren't wired to kill. Those who are in groups who routinely kill are always trained or indoctrinated in some way, whether we're talking gangs, military or cult. Most normal people who become pissed off will stop far short of murder, gun or no gun.

Not really obvious to me. Guns aren't the underlying problem. They're just an easier, scarier sell for politicians, who are more concerned with power than with solving larger societal problems.

I don't think so. I think if we had a big button that made all guns vanish from the Earth instantly, we would still have the same underlying issues with violence. You'd simply be trading the lives of the people who could have defended themselves vs. superior force for the lives of the school shooting victims, no matter how the numbers fell out. Seems like a bad deal for someone.
 

And how many gun homicides are committed "in the heat of the moment," vs. say, for economic reasons? I figure there are a couple of major reasons for homicides, and the biggest two categories are personal vs. economic. Catch your wife cheating on you with the pool boy and kill them in reprisal? Personal. Shoot into a crowd of rival gang members in the parking lot of a corner store because they're impinging on your turf? Economic.
 
It'd be interesting to actually analyze this type of stuff and break down causes into workable categories that can be dealt with. I don't know if any stats for this are already available. My gut and personal experience/training tells me that economically-motivated homicides should outweigh the personal by a wide margin. People simply aren't wired to kill. Those who are in groups who routinely kill are always trained or indoctrinated in some way, whether we're talking gangs, military or cult. Most normal people who become pissed off will stop far short of murder, gun or no gun.

Why do people keep looking for one problem?
 
 
Why do we keep moving from mass shootings to general homicide rates? (Which, as you know, have been trending downward for years.)
 
I'm not even going to attempt to answer this post. You're an educated man. You should already know the answer you're looking for, especially given your profession. So, I think you're mind's made up and any answer I give will just lead to needless back and forth. I like you, as I do everyone  here, so I don't want to get into any kind of bickering with you. I will, however, direct you to that last article I linked, which was found in that long post from csyphrett above.
 
You've read my prior posts on these subjects. You know that I'm open to looking at guns, but you also know that I expect a LOT of other issues be addressed, and the effects assessed before I'm up for impinging too strongly on a fundamental right.

So much wrong with this I don't even know where to begin.
And I say that as one who has a conservative bent when it comes to illegal immigration. Pardon, it used to be conservative- now, because I don't like the idea of tearing families apart and placing kids in concentration camps I'm apparently a hippie or what not.
Folks should come through the doors our country provides, but those doors? They need to be OPEN and ready to receive. We have a moral and ethical obligation to help those coming here seeking freedom and democracy, who cannot achieve it where they come from. As soon as they say the Oath, they're as American as any one who has some great great someone or another that stepped off the Mayflower. And there's a good chance they can answer more questions about our Congress to boot. THEY had to take a test.
 
I know some others will disagree, but the way I see it...
 
You become an American, everything good about the United States of America becomes yours to take pride in. That's right, if you're born in Ethiopia or Thailand or wherever, come over here, earn your citizenship you get to be proud of the moon landing? WHY? Because you have just as much right to be as any other American of this generation and we should treasure what's best in us, cultivate it, and yes damn it be a bit proud. It's like cheering your home team when it's not YOUR ass making a touch down, you still cheer. On the flipside, while you don't have to take the blame for every bad thing America or Americans did- You do gain a sacred responsibility to keep those dark days from happening again. Trying to live up what is best in our country, fighting hard to fix the worst and keep old evils from rising again is the duty of anyone who claims to love their country. Waving the flag is cheap, making it worth waving is what matters.
 
There are going to be a lot of disagreements on what it will take to embrace the best, deny the worst.  We're not all going to agree. Welcome to a Democratic Republic! 
We all love the rags to riches story. We all love the idea of folks coming with nothing and through hard work and sweat making it big. But to me that is not the American Dream. It is the FREEDOM to chase your dreams that is what matters. Some want wealth, some want safety for their family, some want the chance to do something they love. A few want to help their fellow man. You have the chance! But thanks to racist bullcrap like Trump and his goons are trying to enact into policy multitudes wont' even get the CHANCE to prove themselves legally? We won't even offer a hand to them as they come in?  To assume that because of WHERE they came from, what they own, and not who they are, that they cannot be worthy of freedom? That we can't let them have legal means to join us?
 
That is racist, regionalist,  hateful, and let's just admit it, a betrayal on a moral and ethical level so profound that it is treasonous to the American soul.
 
I'm so pissed right now I could shove a flag pole up some bigot's ass!
 
"In God We Trust" is our current motto, but your actions determine who you are giving worship to. Right now? Trump is the high priest of fear and greed, and I didn't sign up to kiss the asses of either Phobos OR Mammon.
It sickens and disgusts me that so many of my fellow citizens are gladly puckering up.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

All you say makes great sense, and aligns with how I personally feel on the matter. But with respect, you and I don't have to live with the consequences of what Jeffrey Epstein did to his victims. They do. Dead isn't dead for them. Epstein will never be dead for them. We will never truly understand what they went through, and we can't really tell them what they should need to find closure.

I'm finding this link from csyphrett interesting.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/jan/09/special-report-fixing-gun-violence-in-america

It wasn't the finale's plot that was problematic, it was the execution.

Oh wait i found everytown which has some stuff. They list their sources
 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS) Fatal Injury Reports. A yearly average was developed using five years of most recent available data: 2013 to 2017. While it is broadly considered to be the most comprehensive firearm fatal injury source, two of the intent categories—Shootings by law enforcement and Unintentional Deaths—are estimated to be greatly underreported. This underreporting is largely due to missing information on death certificates, which may result in misclassification of intent. Multiple media sources and nonprofit groups have tracked shootings by law enforcement but no reliable public database captures unintentional shootings. Intent category averages may not total to yearly average due to rounding. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS) Nonfatal Injury Reports. The CDC derives national estimates of nonfatal firearm injuries treated in hospitals from a survey of hospitals known as the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS). According to the CDC, some of these estimates may be unstable. The CDC’s nonfatal injury data has come under scrutiny largely because of increasing error margins in recent years. Nonetheless, data provided by the CDC on nonfatal injuries are the most common data currently used in gun violence prevention research. To account for fluctuations between years, a yearly average was developed using five years of the most recent available data: 2013 to 2017. Intent category averages may not total to the yearly average due to rounding. Loftin C, Wiersema B, McDowall D, Dobrin A. Underreporting of justifiable homicides committed by police officers in the United States, 1976-1998. American Journal of Public Health. 2003; 93(7): 1117-1121.See also: Barber C, Azrael D, Cohen A, Miller M, et al. Homicides by police: Comparing counts from the National Violent Death Reporting System, Vital Statistics, and Supplementary Homicide Reports. American Journal of Public Health. 2016; 106(5): 922-927. Fatal Force. The Washington Post. Fatal Force. Data reflects a 4 year average (2015 to 2018) of deaths attributed to police shootings. https://wapo.st/2QlEZOo. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS) Fatal Injury Reports. A yearly average was developed using five years of most recent available data: 2013 to 2017. Grinshteyn E, Hemenway D. Violent death rates in the US compared to those of the other high-income countries, 2015. Preventive Medicine. 2019; 123: 20-26. Anglemyer A, Horvath T, Rutherford G. The accessibility of firearms and risk for suicide and homicide victimization among household members: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2014; 160(2): 101-110. Opoliner A, Azrael D, Barber C, Fitzmaurice G, Miller M. Explaining geographic patterns of suicide in the U.S.: The role of firearms and antidepressants. Injury Epidemiology. 2014; 1(1): 6. Miller M, Azrael D, Barber C. Suicide mortality in the United States: The importance of attending to method in understanding population-level disparities in the burden of suicide. Annual Review of Public Health. 2012; 33: 393-408. Ibid. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS) Fatal Injury Reports. A yearly average was developed using five years of most recent available data: 2013 to 2017. White men defined as non-Hispanic white. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS) Fatal Injury Reports. A yearly average was developed using five years of most recent available data: 2013 to 2017. Homicide includes legal intervention. Grinshteyn E, Hemenway D. Violent death rates in the US compared to those of the other high-income countries, 2015. Preventive Medicine. 2019; 123: 20-26. Anglemyer A, Horvath T, Rutherford G. The accessibility of firearms and risk for suicide and homicide victimization among household members: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2014; 160(2): 101-110. Aufrichtig A, Beckett L, Diehm J, Lartey J. Want to fix gun violence in America? Go local. The Guardian. January 9, 2017. https://bit.ly/2i6kaKw. Ibid. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS) Nonfatal Injury Reports. The CDC derives national estimates of nonfatal firearm injuries treated in hospitals from a survey of hospitals known as the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS). According to the CDC, some of these estimates may be unstable. The CDC’s nonfatal injury data has come under scrutiny largely because of increasing error margins in recent years. Nonetheless, data provided by the CDC on nonfatal injuries is the most common data currently used in gun violence prevention research. To account for fluctuations between years, a yearly average was developed using five years of the most recent available data: 2013 to 2017. Ibid. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS) Nonfatal Injury Reports. Ibid. Analysis includes: males of all ages, white defined as non-Hispanic only, and assault including legal intervention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS) Fatal Injury Reports. Data from 2017. Children and teenagers aged 1 to 19, Black defined as non-Hispanic, number of deaths by known intent (homicide, suicide, unintentional deaths). Age 0 to 1 calculated separately by the CDC because leading causes of death for newborns and infants are specific to the age group. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS) Fatal Injury Reports. A yearly average was developed using five years of most recent available data: 2013 to 2017. Analysis includes: ages 0 to 19, and homicide including legal intervention. Fowler KA, Dahlberg LL, Haileyesus T, Gutierrez C, Bacon S. Childhood firearm injuries in the United States. American Academy of Pediatrics. 2017; 140(1): e20163486. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS) Fatal Injury Reports. A yearly average was developed using five years of most recent available data: 2013 to 2017. Analysis includes: ages 0 to 19, non-Hispanic only and homicide including legal intervention. Grinshteyn E, Hemenway D. Violent death rates in the US compared to those of the other high-income countries, 2015. Preventive Medicine. 2019; 123: 20-26. Uniform Crime Reporting Program: Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR), 2013 to 2017. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. While the FBI SHR does not include data from the state of Florida for the years 2013 to 2017, Everytown obtained data directly from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) and included the reported homicides in the analysis. Whereas SHR includes both current and former partners in its relationship designations, FDLE does not include former partners. As a result, Florida's intimate partner violence data only includes current partners. Sorenson SB, Schut RA. Nonfatal gun use in intimate partner violence: A systematic review of the literature. Trauma, Violence & Abuse. 2016; 1524838016668589. Ibid. See also: Tjaden P, Thoennes T. Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. National Institute of Justice, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2000. Campbell JC, Webster D, Koziol-McLain J, et al. Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health. 2003; 93(7): 1089-1097. Uniform Crime Reporting Program: Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR), 2013-2017. See endnote 26. Analysis includes homicides involving an intimate partner and a firearm, and compares the crude death rates for Black women (0.65 per 100,000) versus white women (0.35 per 100,000) (all ages included; Hispanic and non-Hispanic women included). SurveyUSA Market Research Study. Data collected from December 7, 2018 to December 11, 2018. https://bit.ly/2ExxpyZ. See question 39. Finkelhor D, Turner HA, Shattuck A, Hamby SL. Prevalence of childhood exposure to violence, crime, and abuse: Results from the National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence. The Journal of the American Medical Association Pediatrics. 2015; 169(8): 746-754. Everytown analysis derives the 3 million number by multiplying the share of children (ages 0-17) who are exposed to shootings per year (4.2%) by the total child population of the U.S. in 2016 (~73.5M).  

Although Epstein was awful, we wanted him to finger all the other awful people and help jail them too. Now literally hundreds of powerful, connected child rapists are gonna walk. 
 
Also there’s no way Epstein suffered enough during his murder. 

I think you're confusing correlation and causation there. The video from Beau that was posted above lists the four common factors of mass shooters. If you want to deal with the problem via legislation, then those four things should be the first to be addressed, IMO. It makes more sense from a strictly logical standpoint, and is also more economically efficient than spending millions on getting through some half measure that only infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens.
 
EDIT: Here are the points from the video:
 
The Violence Project (NIJ) studied every mass shooter from 1966, found the following points in common:
Early childhood trauma - bullying, suicide of parent, abuse, early exposure to violence Identifiable crisis point - the crisis point, inciting event; time to intervene between event and shooting, probably due to lack of coping skills, as the events themselves are usually relatively minor All of them studied other shooters - it's a social disease Means - They all had weapons. School shooters: 80% stole weapons from family Workplace shooters: Most  used legally owned handguns Public space shooters: Most used illegally purchased weapons The above all per Beau's video, hopefully accurately represented.

Betting odds for 2020:
 
https://www.sportsbettingdime.com/politics/us-presidential-election-odds/