AngTxGal
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2021
- Messages
- 1,029
- Reaction score
- 7,480
There have been many mass-casualty incidents that do not involve rifles (aka your term for Assault Weapons).
I personally do not believe that is prudent to rally for legislation that consists of less than .3% of firearm-related deaths.
The .3% being mass casualty incidents, without accounting for what type of firearm was used. Furthermore, what qualifies as a mass-casualty incident is murky in its own right.
I did Not use the term “assault weapon’ to mean rifle. Yes, I know the difference.
My question is- does the percent, definition of mass-casualty, or gun type matter to the dead?
No. The only reason to even mention these factors is to define legislation, or have the most influence on preventing loss of future lives.
Mass shootings are being targeted because their nature is odd compared to other shootings.
- shooter not related to murdered
- no apparent motive
- public place
- timing of event was short
- number of victims is exceptionally high for the length of time
- shooter may have posted prediction on social media
- the timing, location, shooter, and victims was unable to be predicted by law enforcement.
There are likely other factors I’ve missed.
The point is that we currently live in a country where people are being killed for no apparent darn reason. Like a sport, a game, a competition, target practice. It is sick.
Parents are growing increasingly worried about the safety of their children at school.
IMO that is plenty reason to not quibble over the details.
JMO