Finding Root Cause in these Shootings

Are we willing as a people to do the hard work of examining ourselves individually and as a society to explore why we have just as much gun ownership as ever, but we are far more violent than we were 50 years ago.

When I was a teenager we would go off to the mountains or desert armed with with a variety of firearms and no adult supervision.  We never considered for a moment harming others as an option in our lives.  We just had a good time firing at tin cans or occasionally to do some hunting for squirrels or rabbits.  Shooting at people was considered beyond the pale. 

Shouldn't constitutional originalists be advocating that civilians only be allowed to own muzzle loaders?

Surely that was the intent of the founding fathers.

No, the founders made it clear that we have the same weaponry as the foot soldier against all enemies, foreign and domestic including our own government

James Madison
"T]he advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- James Madison, Federalist No. 46"

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers." -- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)

Federalist No. 46

That was written 4 years before the figured out that, though they feared it, the US needed a standing army. By 1796 they codified as the United States Army. 

But even before that, in 1792, they passed the first Militia Act. The second Militia Act [May 8, 1792] of the same year, [cuz they got it wrong the first time] codified conscription and REQUIRED that specific material be acquired [purchase produces, think the ACA] by every able bodied man of a certain age. Oh and it also mandated Officers and training for said militia.

When was the last time you drilled with your state militia? 

BTW, Madison was in the House when they passed the 1792 Militia Acts. Oh and let's not forget that the Militia Act was motivated by INTERNAL strife, the Whiskey Rebellion for which Washington LEAD the military response...

After the standing Army was established, the government was mandated to furnish weapons, hence the establishment of armories...

The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword

OK, so swords as well as muskets must be allowed to the general citizenry.

"Actually, the founders believed that the people should have the same ability to defend themselves against criminals and government on an equal basis. "

And that made sense when the muzzle loader was the peak of killing power. We have advanced so far beyond that point that that attitude is just flat out insane. With that logic nuclear weapons should be for sale to the public, you know, to keep things even. Chemical and biological weapons as well. You HAVE to admit that a line needs to be drawn, at a certain point the public simply cannot be trusted. If we honestly get to the point to where an armed resistance is needed against the US government, then the people have already failed miserably and don't deserve a representative democracy. 

I trust armed law abiding citizens before I trust government

I trust armed law abiding citizens before I trust government

Based on the incoherent rants of gun freaks on this and every discussion board I've ever been on, they are the last people I'd ever trust for anything, much less having access to a mass-killing weapon.

Livefree, 

In 2016, rifles, not ARs, but all rifles, accounted for 347 of weapons used in homicides. That is just shy of 2.5% of weapons used. The FBI doesn't break the number down, but I'd bet that ARs account for less than half of that 2.5%. Regardless, its clear, when looking at the stats, that a successful ban of the AR won't even put a noticeable dent into the homicide rate. 

In liberal world, banning something used in 1.25% of homicides is a major victory. In reality, that 1.25% will be replaced by one of the other 6 weapon types, that are used far more often. Twice as many people are killed annually by another person's hands or feet. More than 3 times the people are stabbed to death, or beat to death by a blunt object. 

Yet, there will be a cry to ban ARs. Liberals will shake their fists, as if they are promoting some ground shaking law that will save thousands. Not even close. 

The homicide rate is out of whack. The violent crime rate is out of whack, when compared to other developed countries. You're correct. There's something wrong in the US. But, we won't address that. 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/how-ronald-reagan-passed-the-assault-weapon-ban?utm_term=.hooDPD7ba#.oxl1d1MQl

This isn't about single murders. 

What percentage of mass murders, since the assault weapons ban elapsed, were committed by someone using an AR? 

28%

bruce answered , but most people are not aware that the Clinton AWB didn't even ban the very firearm being talked about , it had definitions of specific features( think there were 6-7 features) that there had to be a combination of any 3 of those features to be considered an assault weapon.

all that was done was limit the features and the same weapon was NOT considered an assault weapon, thus not banned .

bayonet lugs were left off, instead of a collapsible or folding stock a straight stock was used , flash suppressors were left off, they even modified pistol grips to mold into a straight stock. doing that made the weapon "legal" to own.

 magazines that held more than 10 rounds were grandfathered and still legal to own , just couldn't buy newly manufactured ones , but they were available on the surplus market.

Constituting how many victims vs. a 9mm or other semiauto handgun. 

I know how esoteric the ban was, it was intentionally written to be so. It could be written to include any combination thereof. 

Constituting how many victims vs. a 9mm or other semiauto handgun.

That is difficult to answer without having autopsy reports from all of the shootings.  There were 64 mass or spree killings since the end of the ban (Sep 2004).  In 18 of those, the shooter had a Semi-Automatic rifle.  But it gets muddy from this point.  I counted EVERY incident where he/she HAD that weapon.  But many of them also included other firearms.  Unless you research each incident, we do not know exactly how many victims died from rifle, pistol, or shotgun.  I was erring conservatively in my count.  I included EVERY incident, but I know that in several of the cases the AR jammed or would not function properly.

a sentient being using the tool....

Who got a weapon of mass destruction HOW? 

The FIRST stand alone bill passed and then signed by Trump ALLOWS those who have been determined to be mentally incapable of managing their SSI to stay off of the NICS list. It was sponsored by Grassley who just said this:

"And we have not done a very good job of making sure that people that have mental reasons for not being able to handle a gun getting their name into the FBI files and we need to concentrate on that."

Anything to reverse Obama era legislation.

Yesterday Trump said: "We are committed to working with state and local leaders to help secure our schools, and tackle the difficult issue of mental health."

Hypocrisy.

Actually, not it's not.  The problem with that was it's not part of the LAW.  It was departmental policy.  And because of that, it had no due process.  The criteria was the same was what they were doing to Vets:  If you designated someone else to manage your finances, you were deemed incompetent.  There was no hearing, no due process, no method of getting your name off the list once it was there.

The reason THAT was the criteria is because of HIPPA.  The SSA can't ask the medical care givers what the mental condition of the individual is, so they decided that anyone who had someone else cashing their checks, or managing their bank accounts was mentally unstable.  Hardly a legal or fair method.

Now, Congress can fashion a law, or amend the Brady act in a way that allows for due process, as well as get by HIPPA.

Root cause is overpopulation and overcrowding

Sutherland Springs, TX has a population of 600.

yes--- basically a suburb of San Antonio--only 21 miles away. San Antonio has a population of roughly 1.5 MILLION.

I concur.  Unfortunately the politicians and the public in general can not grasp the concept that a larger population competing in an expanding economic base which is also concentrating that economic base against them will have consequences.

Perhaps this why bio-tech is being explored with such fervor.

Root cause(s) is whatever encourages a human brain to conclude that the gratuitous killing of others is a good idea.   With a population of 323 million it is inevitable that dangerous psychotics will exist.  In a lot of these cases it seems the culprit was known to be strange or troubled - better methods of early warning would help.   Then we have the case of the Las Vegas sniper who showed apparently no indications of abnormal behavior before carrying out a massacre - basically shooting into a crowd from a strategic position - an act of insanity IMO.

Seems we (unfortunately) do not understand what drives these people.   Thus we are left with a nightmare of a challenge.   The odds of these murderers existing is high (given the size of our rising population).   The efficiency of accessible weaponry continues to increase (chemical is especially scary).   Both factors translate into these tragedies growing increasingly more frequent and more deadly.   

So far today 3 schools within the WNY area have been on lockdown due to copy cat threats.  I just do not understand people's mentality.  2 students in one of the copy cat threats are in police custody.

All three districts are rural.

wgrz

There was one in Stockbridge, MI yesterday.  

I don't remember any threats back in the day when I attended school.  There where a few bomb threats at my children's high school.  I think maybe two in their years attending.

I blame the internet and social media.  Seems boundaries for children that once existed have disappeared.

I can remember fire alarms being pulled as a prank but never a bomb or gun threat.  But again I graduated from high school in 1980.

I graduated in 1974 and my children 2001 and 2003.  

Blame something?  Sure, why not.  I will blame the legitimization of illegitimate conservatism. 

You know, the new crop of overpaid 'mouth maws.'  Alex Jones, Hannity, the scattered duck feathered dude from New York--( Levin ) and of course the bloated island dweller in Florida among many others of lesser known status and pay grade.

More education for the anti gun rights left and their ignorance about firearms
These psychos who have used AR-15s do so for the psychological effects of their appearance. Most firearms sold in America have equal or greater firing rates to the AR-15
washingtonexaminer
All the rates shown here including those of the AR-15 and military automatic are THEORETICAL rates. Gassing, misfires, jams, and the individual all affect actual performance.
guncite

Widely popular handguns like the Glock 17 easily can fire approximately 550 rounds per minute rate. Given magazine limitations it still can fire at twice the rate of an AR-15.
Using 10 round magazines which restrictive states like CA permit or the more widely accepted 17 round magazines a determined murderer with limited training could easily kill 40-50 people per minute
A practiced shooter with a Bolt action rifle with a 3 cartridge chamber capacity can fire about 25-30 rounds per minute (some have achieved even higher rates)
The Winchester Super X3 12 gauge Shotgun has a capability of more than 500 rounds per minute.
tacshooter.wordpress

And remember when Joe Biden recommended that an old fashioned pump shotgun (which remains the most popular sold) with a 5-8 shell capacity can fire up to 500 shells per minute if the targets are at close range

All this information which is never shared by either the media or anti-gun rights politicians would dramatically change the debate if it was actually part of our national conversation. Unfortunately the media share in this assault on our rights and thus will never be honest in their presentations