OT [NSFL, Extremely Graphic] - Photos Released by the Washington Post from Scenes of Mass Shootings

And you posted this because?….

 

Because anyone who thinks that unfettered gun ownership in the twenty first century is defensible needs a brutal reality check???

 

Because people here can start threads about almost anything, and no one has to read them.

 

Do you think gun ownership is unrestricted in the US?

 

We don't have unfettered gun ownership in this country. We have age limits and background checks are required. Virtually nobody is advocating for unfettered gun ownership.

Felons and those who have been forcibly committed to mental institutions are not allowed to have guns, by law.

What these pictures show is that you can't count on the police to help you. They were literally on the scene (hiding) listening to the act in many of these horrible pictures.

You had better be able to defend yourself and those you love, because nobody else is going to do it for you.

The other thing this does is encourage copycats.

 

That seems like a ton of anecdotal evidence leading to an opinion.

War sucks though. I'm sorry your relatives had to go through it and took so long to recover.

 

Gun ownership for all intents and purposes IS unfettered. How else to these lunatics continue to obtain guns?? You are arguing against the inarguable. And a larger portion of the "right" IS (and HAS) advocated for unfettered gun ownership. Every single time(!!!) restrictions are brought to the table, gun owners in general fight tooth and nail against them. They do not want ANY restrictions. And for you to say otherwise is flat out false. The amount of states who now have unrestricted open carry laws (or are pondering them) is mind boggling. Like that won't make the problem worse?? And felons and people with said mental health issues still get guns. We've seen this in the past 6 months alone. We pay the police to respond and defend us. If they are unable or unwilling to do their jobs, then they need to be removed and replaced with officers who understand the reason they get a monthly paycheck. Advocating that American citizens be armed against each other is the lazy (and morally indefensible) way out. And will only lead to more shootings, mass or otherwise. Bottom line, what few "restrictions" we have in place obviously do not do jack shit. I'm curious as to how you'd feel if someone strolled into OCHS and started blasting away.......

 

Unfettered means unrestrained or uninhibited. Once again. By law, people who have been convicted of a felony or have been forcibly committed are not allowed to buy or own guns anywhere in the country. And background checks are required.
By definition, we don't have legally unrestrained or uninhibited access to firearms. And virtually nobody wants dangerous felons or mentally dangerous people to have guns.

I've never heard anybody serious argue that dangerous criminals and mentally dangerous people should have access to firearms.

Some felons and people with mental health issues will always get guns. There is no way to prevent that in a free society. It didn't work with alcohol. It didn't work with drugs. It can't. It just makes them more valuable. And it can't work with guns either.
Our best bet is educating our population and helping fewer people want to kill others. That's it.
Once again, there is room to make it safer and more easily restrict people from getting guns who shouldn't. Mark the ID of anybody who is restricted from firearms with with a restriction. Make it a felony to supply those people with guns or ammo.

Do that, and now there is a very simple way for the average person to help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.

And of course, free and easy to access education and healthcare, along with an improved social safety net would make a far bigger difference than any gun law.

Criminals will be armed. Of that, we can be certain. We've never been able to restrict criminals from accessing anything that millions of people want. It can't be done in a free society. And I wouldn't want to live in a society that had so little freedom that we could, quite frankly.

I'd feel like there should have been proper measures taken to keep the bastard out, and failing that, staff should be allowed (though not forced) to be armed (with proper district funded regular training, psych eval, and added compensation) so they could defend themselves. I'd hope that the students of the families would sue the government for putting kids in a situation that they couldn't be defended.

My kids know to run out the nearest exit and not stop until there are several blocks between them and any attacker, and to call me immediately. I'm 5 minutes away. So unless they are astronomically unlucky that day they will be fine.

 

I haven't been looking at any pictures of the dead in Ukraine or Palestine. I'm interested in the politics and solutions. Not the carnage. I don't like reading about the horrible murder/suicides when families run their car in the garage (or run a hose from their car exhaust into their house) to kill themselves and their kids either.

It's morbid, IMO.

I don't fault anybody else for wanting to see it, but it's just not for me. I'd rather think about solutions.

 

Yep. I'm not faulting you for it at all. I can see the benefits for sure.

Just a bit much for me.

If there are details that help explain things, I'd certainly be interested. But when the lead is a bunch of gory pictures I'm less likely to dive in.

 

Gotcha. Everywhere I've seen this referenced has lead with the pictures.

*Edit* Like this reddit post. Links to the pictures front and center. I don't even see a link to the article.

 

Yes, you did. I was simply saying the morbid aspect is what's being generally pushed, so I hadn't read further. Using the reddit post as an example, as it was already in the thread.

I'm not being critical of you, Sly. I'm sorry if I came across that way.

 

I finally had a chance to read it. It reads like the theory is that seeing these images would make people more likely to vote to remove the AR15?
I don't even know how that would be possible... but assuming you could. A hunting rifle would cause far more damage.

A hunting round like the .308 is 3 times the mass of the .223 or 5.56 rounds being used in these AR15 shootings, and as such, has MUCH higher kinetic energy. The 30-06 produces even more energy and velocity than the .308, and is a heavier load.

We're talking hamburger. No joke.

And if those calibers kick too hard, a .243 has nearly no kick and will do the same thing as the .223 or 5.56 to a body.

And you can get 30 round mags for these hunting rifles as well. You can make these magazines in your garage in an afternoon with typical tools and some hardware from Lowes. If you make a few fixtures you can probably do it in under an hour.

And if you outlaw all semi-auto rifles the market will be wide open for home made rifles. And full auto is easier and cheaper to make than semi-auto. And over half of the states in the country will refuse to enforce the ban. I made a post with videos covering what rudimentary tools are needed to make guns.

So ban semi-automatic rifles (which is about the only way we're going to ban the AR15, as far as I can tell) and we'll have cheaply available, untraceable, fully automatic rifles instead of the situation we have now. Which means it will be easier and likely cheaper for criminals and deranged psychos to get even more dangerous guns than it is now.

But it will be harder for law abiding citizens to get them...