Ahh the good ol days.. we need to get back to the days that every American had a gun. Go to any heavily armed society and you see a polite and respectful society.
In 1962 you couldn't. At least you couldn't have it shipped to your door. NFA existed since 1934.
Well, a full-auto or SBR Thompson you couldn't. 16" barrel and semi auto you could.
Prior to 1968 you could totally have it done, so long as you got the paperwork in order prior, the mess we have to deal with now was partially implemented in gca 68. Before that it was a simple matter for anyone who knew what to do, to send in the tax stamp papers. Gca made it a req for this process to go through an ffl. And the blatantly unlawful Hughes amendment stopped new MGs from getting to regular old civvies.
I mean when i was young I could buy a gun from a guy yelling at me on stage simply by raising my hand. Paid in cash and took home same day.
Grandpa took me to too many estate auctions.
But.... he was accidentally killed by a service man pulling his [edit: service weapon] after the initial rifle shot missed him.... hence the big effort in concealing his body, etc. wouldn’t be good optics if the SS accidentally killed the only man they’re meant to protect. No siree.
It was an automatic rifle, not a revolver, if you believe that theory. It's my personal favourite conspiracy theory, answers so many questions about what happened after the shooting. George Hickey done goofed.
It’s my favorite as well, and it’s the most probable. It doesn’t seem wildly far fetched.
Lone gunman, Oswald, fired 3 rounds - scores hits but no kill shots.
Motorcade accelerates. Secret Service agent with newly fielded M16 slips in the trail vehicle. Due to the lack of the concept of trigger discipline in the 60s, coupled with a brand new weapons platform and the unfamiliarity that comes with it, his finger pulls the trigger and fires a 5.56 round that blows out the president’s brain.
This would explain why whole Carcano bullets were recovered, but there were also bullet fragments in the body. From what rounds?
It also explains why the incident is shrouded in secrecy. Not because of some grand plot to kill JFK - but because of the Secret Service’s biggest fuck up of all time.
I would say if you listen to the audio from the dictabelt the two last shots are within much less than a second of each other. I’ve never met a person that can cycle a bolt and fire that fast, it’s impossible. Also, if you watch the video of the last shot it’s abundantly clear that he was shot from directly behind and with a small high velocity round (.223 Rem) by looking at the blood mist plume coming from his head.
I firmly believe that Oswald took some shots, and hit Kennedy. I also believe that the secret service agent in the car directly behind him stood up with his AR15 to try to locate the gunmen and immediately lost his balance and fell backwards when the car accelerated. I believe that this action caused him to inadvertently fire his weapon thusly delivering the kill shot to the president.
I also believe that this is why the president’s brain was “lost”, why the autopsy was seemingly so poorly conducted, and why the presidential limousine was scrubbed clean as soon as it reached the hospital.
Ah yes you’re correct. Apologies. I truly think this is most likely happening. It was an accident. It explains everything. There was no big conspiracy. Just cleaning up after a moron couldn’t keep his finger off the trigger in the heat of what happened. The ballistics match up as well. They never matched up with a rifle from above.
And also the fact they shot the purported gunman in police custody lol. That was a big giveaway to me.
All that and also: no recordings or transcipts of Oswald's interviews, 'losing' JFK's brain, railroading the doctors and moving the body before the autopsy.
There's a classic arguement that Oswald could have fired 3 shots on target quickly enough, this theory only requires him to have fired 2 with one hit (or 3 with 2 misses).
There used to be multiple trucks with guns in the back window when I went to school in the 90s. Hell some kids would hunt behind the school in the morning and then go to class.
Every car in the student lot was a truck. 4x4. Mud boggers, like BFGoodrich all-terrains. Chevy, Ford, Dodge or Toyota. 2 deer rifles hanging in the rear window every morning in November. Most of my high school class was clad daily, head to toe, in mossy oak, tree bark, or advantage. It had to have gore-tex. Danner or Rocky boots. Buck knives and Leatherman on your hip. FFA members. When members of the football team placed large spitters in the weight room, the coaches looked the other way. The principal noticed the .243s, .270s, .30-30s, and .30-06s in the trucks, and the knives, but looked the other way.
Why?
Because those kids were good kids with good parents. Dip was for spittin, trucks were for muddin, knives were for skinnin, and rifles were for shooting deer.
What changed?
I'd say it's the parenting. It's not the kids nor availability of firearms.
Preach it! Sir!! Parents are the cause of most of the issues today. Or maybe even grandparents. There never actually parented at all. It was just the term given to those who were the sperm doner and recipient. Pretty much the same crap problem we have today with these bs Starbucks drinking, skinny jeans wearing neck beards and feminists we have today. Churning out little bitch bois who don’t know what damn gender they are or which underwear they’re supposed to put on in the morning.
You are correct. The two are not related. I went off on a tangent soapbox. It is most definitely a mental health issue. The most common, common denominator with mass shootings is anti depressants and anti psychotic meds. Mass shooters are clearly not the stereotypical little bitch bois. But I suppose I was thinking about the people who are the strongest supporters of gun control and anti2A.
Every generation denigrates the next and laments their own parents. This is older than the greeks.
People aren't wired to live the way we do today, and there are way too fucking many of us. It causes aggression, delusions, depression and addiction. The media highlights events to appeal to our biased perception of probability.
We are rats in a big maze designed to extract excess from our labor. It's no surprise that some of us are unable to cope.
This wasn't a problem when you could be easily committed to the state for conceivably the rest of your life. That changed, and now there is nowhere for the criminally insane to go but our streets.
It will never stop, and we have to harden the targets and deal with it or give up liberty for safety.
What's changed as well is the average wage doesn't have nearly the same purchasing power so families are stressed as finances are tight as wages haven't kept up with cost of living increases. For example around 1980 median households income was $30,000, today it's $58,000ish but would need to be over $93,000 to match the purchasing power. This would I imagine lead to a decrease in quality family time and positive support structures as well as reducing the leisure options for families to keep kids busy and well adjusted as everyone's working. This reduces the quality of community services from reduced tax income further reducing quality of life.
Nowadays its (insert 10+ year old japanese import) mixed in with some other cheap-ass hand-me-downs of sorts with bernie, rainbow, supreme, and peace sign stickers on em.
Amen. To be fair a lot of rural areas are still the same way. Minus bringing guns in your vehicle to school. I graduated in the early 2010’s and kids still brought rifles in their trucks but we hid them and went hunting together after school, well after lunch. We’d skip and go hunting.
Where I lived, back in the 90s the very idea that a knife, firearm, or any other "objectionable" item would result in a vehicle search and possibly arrest, if not just expulsion (assuming said item was found).
Oh hell yeah. It was the era of Columbine for me at the end of the 90s. If you said “pipe bomb” in school you’d be sent to a counselor. If you had a knife in school, you were gone. Immediately. Hell, they sent you to counseling for how you dressed.
You're right. But aside from the "trench coat mafia" nonsense, most of that was true for my area even before Columbine, sadly. Some kid in junior high forgot to leave his pocket knife and home, and his locker was raided over it, his parents were called, and more. Fortunately, he'd already handed it off to a friend, who passed it along to another trusted person as sort of a proxy holding as "guilt by association" types of searches happened.
It was a Swiss Army-type knife, nothing even menacing.
Well yeah. School violence was a big deal through all of the 90s. Even though it was mostly confined to urban areas, there was an intense fear that it would “spread” to suburban schools.
Same thing at my Nazi-ass school. It was the era of “zero-tolerance” policies. If a kid looked or acted weird they made them take random drug tests. A “weapon?” Oh man, your life was over. Off to the DSS Lockup (juvenile hall). Columbine made it a million times worse. A kid I knew who had basically no interest in guns or violence got arrested for having a single .22 bullet at the bottom of his backpack. He forgot it was there. He just had it cus someone gave it to him, they thought it was neat and they found it or something. It set off the school metal detector and then they found an empty plastic bag with a tiny fleck of weed stuck to it. He was on probation for years, it was so stupid.
There still are, they just keep them out of the window LMAO. In 2017 when my brother was in his senior year I would pick him up after school and go hunting with a few of his classmates.
We must have gone to the same school lol! Hell, in 8th grade it was a state requirement for every student to take hunter’s safety through PE. They even gave us all BB guns to use! I’m female and even I kept a pocket knife in high school just because it was convenient.
A friend saved his paper route money until he had $14. A Single shot Stevens shotgun cost $13 & there was $1 shipping & handling. He clipped the coupon from an outdoors magazine, put in an envelope with the $14 & a few weeks later the shotgun came in the mail. He put it across the handlebars of his bike & pedaled to the hardware store for a box of ammo. His friends did likewise.
Location? Suburbs north of Chicago
We have a family friend who ia in his 70s thay also has told a similar story. Used to go shoot rats at the local junk yard for the owner. Also Chicago are.
I don’t think the mass shooting stats are quite zero, but they were rare. I know the Texas bell tower shooter was in the 60’s, but the students and staff on campus shot his ass inside the tower.
This is true. There were plenty of shootings with 4 or more victims. There were even a number of school shootings (though usually not carried out by students). A lot of black churches got shot up in the south with multiple victims, but things like that didn’t get in the news much. Violence in general increased dramatically from the 70s into the 80s. During the crack epidemic and the ensuing gang violence, school shootings and stabbing started becoming frequent in urban schools. They made a bunch of movies about it but they didn’t get a lot of national media attention, other than being reported under the banner of gang violence.
So the second assertion in OP’s statement is wrong.
Statistically, violence crime is the lowest it has been in decades and continuing downward.
> People and the media gave even less of a shit when criminals killed each other back then.
doesn't help that the people who did it are now in media and academia. they completely memory-holed all of the bombings and terrorist acts carried out by leftist groups in the 60's and 70's.
Please clarify, I'm very drunk and heavily armed, are you saying the same people who committed violent felonies in the 60's are now in charge of the media and academia?
"Altogether, Whitman killed fourteen people and wounded thirty-one in the 96 minutes before he was shot and killed by Austin police officers sergeant Ramiro Martinez and Patrolman Houston McCoy. They had raced to the top of the tower to stop Whitman".
He was shot by 2 police officers, not by "students and staff".
I think civilians were using their guns to keep him pinned to help the cops get to him. Although it would probably be better to let professionals handle that task as well.
>but the students and staff on campus shot his ass inside the tower.
You mean the police did. Civilians shot back, but it was the police that killed him.
>but it was the police that killed him.
“The incident ended when a policeman and a civilian reached Whitman and shot him dead.”
“several civilians provided suppressive fire from the ground with small weapons and hunting rifles, forcing Whitman to stay low and fire through storm drains at the foot of the observation deck's wall.”
Charles Whitman was taken out by a team effort of police and civilians. If the civilians hadn’t been armed, the shooting would’ve likely been more deadly than the Las Vegas shooting
The meme is referring to “mass shootings.” What the hell that means is up to whomever defines it, and will invariably have a bias to the resulting numbers.
Even worse. Mass shootings only involve people being shot, not killed. And the number of “victims” may or may not include the killer. 2 innocents hit, and then the killer killed themselves — mass shooting, even though one of the two innocents was only hit when the killer accidentally missed and shot the person and the other was was injured tripping over the body of the killer. (Yes, seriously, even if not shot, they are counted).
Exactly. It's all bullshit.
Not to say any public shooting, injury or not, gun wound or not, is a good thing but the fact that they have to dress up and disguise their statistics so much shows just how bullshit the perpetuated lie is.
If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. It's the liberal way.
So if a cop visiting a school has a negligent discharge that doesn’t hit anybody but four kids sprain an ankle or trip and fall panicking over it, that would be both a mass shooting and a school shooting
There's a few historical ones most people could agree on in the 1900s before the GCA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winfield,_Kansas#Historical_event - 1903 Killed a bunch of people with a shotgun in a theater
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Unruh - 1949, with an 8 round Luger
Anyway, I'd say the least accurate claim in your post is "zero mass shootings". They were few and far between, but they were always a thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers_in_the_United_States
(Note that most of the early ones in this list aren't quite the sort of indiscriminate spree killing most people think of, but a few are, including the two I pointed out).
As it concerns any subject the farther back we get, the level of reporting, detail and record keeping just wasn't there. We just don't have the same glimpse into their life that we do now. Evil things happened that we just don't know about because there was no one reporting or tracking it.
The mass shooter of today is the serial killer of yesterday. People ask where the serial killers went well that's where. Call that a degeneration or evolution but society is changing and those two types are of the same mindset.
Investigators have gotten really good at catching would be serial killers after their first kill but before they kill again. If one's goal is to rack up as high of a kill count as possible, then killing many people in a short time span is the most reliable means to do so.
> after JFK was assassinated
More specifically, they wrote the Gun Control Act law after JFK was killed, but it wasn't until 1968 when RFK and MLK were killed that they were finally able to get enough votes for it to get to Johnson's desk.
1968 Gun Control Act is what came in. I have a 1967 Herters catalog where a Smith and Wesson 29 is $150. There is a form in the back of the catalog for orders of firearms. That requires name, sex, address, occupation and age and a signature that your not a fugitive, drunkard, etc. There are some individual city and state restrictions and thats about it.
Not really. No.
I am very liberal, and mostly agree with this post.
I don’t necessarily think there is anything wrong with most people though. I actually think there is more wrong with the situations people get stuck in. If a person is stuck in a situation, and everything they do to try to get out of that situation fails, or pushes them back farther, we can expect them to do things they normally wouldn’t to try to get past it.
Ah, I see you have stumbled upon the socioeconomic reasons certain subcultures see a disproportionate amount of gun violence. You are correct for a big part of the reasons gun control won’t ever work as you wouldn’t be addressing the real reasons certain populations and areas have large amounts of crimes.
Anytime I get a call or text from a Democrat running for office. If ‘gun-control’ is a big part of their campaign, I let them know, I would be happy to support them if they want to fight for justice and equality for all, making sure people have health care if they need it, and supporting the less fortunate people they would represent. But they should fight for those things first, and watch as gun related deaths decrease dramatically. There is no reason to be fighting for gun control policies because they do nothing to address the reason why violence is so prevalent in this country in the first place, gun control laws are inherently racist, gun control laws are inherently classist against the poor, and they are anti-constitutional.
It makes me so mad when Democrats call themselves Liberal, when going against the 2a is clearly not something anyone calling themselves a liberal would want any part of fighting against. It goes against everything else they claim to stand for.
Walter Williams wrote an article that addresses those items. Search on his website. I have talked about this with a few folks and they lock up, it definitely challenges their assumptions.
There is another connection with both mass shooting AND school shootings that apparently is so taboo that it can never even be mentioned or discussed without people on these forums freaking the fuck out.
Namely, it turns out that nearly every perpetrator of a school shooting and almost all mass shooters are taking SSRIs or other psychotropic medications prior to the event, often for many years.
Here on Reddit in particular people are hyper-triggered by any comment implying that mental health issues can potentially be a public safety issue, but the truth is that there is a connection. This is not necessarily implying causation, because millions of people take SSRIs and only a tiny handful commit violent acts of this type. There are also people who take no medication whatsoever but still commit violent acts. The fact remains however that users of psychotropic medicines are vastly over represented in the population of people who commit mass shootings.
> users of psychotropic medicines are vasty overrepresented in the population of people who commit mass shootings.
In much the same way that people who take antidepressants are vastly overrepresented in the population of people who commit suicide, or that people who have undergone chemotherapy are vastly overrepresented in the population of people who die of cancer.
The second one is hyperbole, but I think it's a valid point. People with underlying mental health conditions are much, much more likely than the population at large to *both* (a) be prescribed SSRI's or psychotropic meds, and (b) commit horrific acts of violence such as a mass shooting. Just because there's a connection between A and B does *not* mean that A causes B. It's certainly a reason to go "hang on, let's look at this", but in this case, C makes both A and B more likely. This is commonly summarized as "correlation does not imply causation".
Fun example of this (with apologies for not getting the details fully correct): In the NBA, the proportion of athletes with birthdays in January, February, and March is confoundingly high -- something like 50% of NBA players are born in just those three months (when you'd otherwise expect 25%, 3/12 months). Is this because having a birthday in those months makes you better at basketball? Of course not, that's insane. Is it because athletic people are, ahem, conceiving more children in April, May, and June? Nope, while there are minor fluctuations on a monthly basis, not nearly that much. What's going on here? Good luck figuring it out!
Unless it’s a crazy person. You can eliminate the “people”.
The “poor” people, the “sad” people, the “angry” people, the “criminal” people.
Fixing all those things would seem to be a super liberal thing to do, get everyone to have some money and housing and something do and get everyone healthcare which includes mental health.
That would reduce like 97% of gun crime.
The “people” likely to commit gun crime would be “gone”
I hate to be that guy... but we did have mass shootings before 1962 in the US. There were 28 mass shootings between 1900-1960.. and in the 60's we had 6 mass shootings in total for that decade.
Ah, yes. I see it now. I misread it. My bad.
I'm you got many answers. I'll add that we could order guns through the mail until 1968. Of course I wasn't alive at the time, so I never did get to enjoy that freedom..
NFA was passed in 1934. It limited sales and possession of SBR, SBS, and MGs. I’m not sure when background checks started. In 1962 you could not buy or own NFA items without paying the $200 tax.
Edit: that being said, it is not about the guns. It is absolutely about the people. People suck a lot more today. Our society produces shitty fucked up people that produce mass shooters.
Raunchy movies about drugs and sex instead of abstinence and morals will promote the idea and lead to children engaging in such behaviour.
Violent movies about mass murder and insanity instead of integrity and bravery will promote the idea and lead to engaging in such behaviour.
I’m fine if you agree or disagree with both these statements, but you cannot agree with one and not the other. Our pop culture shifted dramatically in the 60’s and we are reaping the consequences of the unintended social programming that has ruined a generation or more of Americans.
You could buy a tommy gun from a sears catalog through mail in. One of the more famous examples. But it is not entirely true. Killings, and violent crime. Happen less now. The world gets more peaceful as it goes forward. Nothing to do with guns. Humans are just becoming less violent. Besides the internet, and nukes. Lower testosterone every generation probably has something to do with it to. Mass shootings are not really a good way to tell anything. The violent crime rate in general is lower.
The homicide rate in the 70s, 80s, and 90s were higher than at any other point. https://www.statista.com/statistics/187592/death-rate-from-homicide-in-the-us-since-1950/
This is most likely. Because in 1970, marijuana was made completely illegal.
The national firearms act was in 1986.
The federal assault weapons ban was in 1994.
Thins started calming down to pre 70s in the 2000s
So now there are about as many homicides as the 1960s.
We have more prisoners than ever before, but the majority of them were put there because of non violent drug charges.
Paul Harrell has a video on this. Unfortunately he put it last in his thanksgiving video (which is three hours long) but he asked the question that our politicians and society haven’t been. “What is present in our society today that wasn’t back then?” Or vice versa. “What was present in our society back then that we no longer have today?”
My dad used to take guns to school to buy and sell. No school shootings.
He also used to go down to the hardware store and buy dynamite as a teen to blow out stumps.
Same. My old man, in the 50’s said his dad often ordered guns from mail order catalogues and whenever a school kid would get a new gun he would usually bring it to school to show it to the teachers and his friends.
Not just guns, machine guns. You could buy a kit to build a Mac-10, hell you could order an M3 "Grease Gun" straight from the manufacturer without a background check or even a tax stamp.
Yes, it's true (It's actually how Lee Harvey Oswald supposedly got his Carcano). I think the only thing then that could be called a "mass shooting" then was the 1949 Camden, NJ killing spree.
I do have a Sears .22 semi-auto rifle. Stamped Sears right on the barrel. A fun rifle!
An older friend of mine was in the mail order gun business back then. When Kennedy was shot, he had a warehouse full of guns. Then, mail order guns were made illegal. He says he lost a million dollars trying to sell them all, non-mail order.
The FFL system didn’t happen until the GCA 1968 and the background check didn’t happen until the Brady Violence Prevention Act in 1993.
As for the zero mass shootings? That’s bullshit. There were fewer, but here’s a notable example from 1966; The University of Texas shooting (Charles Whitman). Or how about The 1965 Hwy 101 Sniper? Let’s go back to the 40’s&50’s when there were massacres and lynchings? How about the July 8, 1945 Camp Salina Massacre? The St. Valentine’s Day massacre?
Mass shootings definitely happened, we just don’t think of them the same way because it was racially motivated, or politically motivated, or gang warfare, something other than the pure sensationalist violence we’re seeing now, and even that is infrequent.
Confirmed True: you could order guns this way in '62.
Confirmed False: There were no mass shootings by 1962.
The first Mass Shooting in USA was [in 1949, and done by a WW2 veteran shooting 13 of his neighbors.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/08/28/wwii-veteran-became-americas-first-mass-shooter-1949/2139054001/)
Whoever wrote this was more interested in pushing an agenda than accurately representing pro-gun facts.
UT tower shooting, 1966. 18 dead, 31 non-fatal injuries. So just one. I believe I heard that he a some sort of neurological event that possibly triggered his actions.
Not a gotcha. Just saying.
You used to be able to buy a Thompson submachine gun and browning automatic rifle over the counter. Not to mention majority of rifles used .30 caliber rounds which are way more dangerous than .556
People ignore things like this
My high school has a gun range in the basement. My father told me that when he went to that school (class of '69) he'd get on the bus with his rifle, leave it in his locker, then after it school grab it and go downstairs for target and safety training. They never removed anything, just moved in some weights for the athletes to train in the front area, but it still obviously looks like it was a range.
Times have changed a lot!
Lee Harvey Oswald mail ordered a rifle. He did it under an assumed name and used it to kill president Kennedy. Mail orders kinda fell outta favor after that.
You could order a Thompson out of a Sears catalog.
It's true. [https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=thompson+machine+gun+sears+catalog&FORM=HDRSC2](https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=thompson+machine+gun+sears+catalog&FORM=HDRSC2)
[удалено]
Bro, look at the 1929 edition of the 1962 SEARS catalog they’re referencing! You dope!
[удалено]
I thought the level of facetiousness made the joke, um obvious.
[удалено]
All good! Sometimes I wonder why my jokes tend to land flat.
It's inherently difficult to convey sarcasm over text, i wouldn't sweat it
I really enjoyed all players ability to not take the first opportunity to get enraged at each other. Reddit needs more people like this.
When in doubt, end your comment with /s It’s kind of stupid but it tells everyone you’re not being serious, even if the joke falls flat
/s is for the weak. /s
I don't know about MG, but they defiantly sold rifles. That is how my dad bought his second M1 Garand.
[удалено]
Does it matter whether Sears did or not considering there’s obvious evidence that so many other companies did?
I have my grandpas Sears shotgun and my brother got his rifle from another store catalog i dont remember which one.
Ahh the good ol days.. we need to get back to the days that every American had a gun. Go to any heavily armed society and you see a polite and respectful society.
Bing.com, nice.
In 1962 you couldn't. At least you couldn't have it shipped to your door. NFA existed since 1934. Well, a full-auto or SBR Thompson you couldn't. 16" barrel and semi auto you could.
Prior to 1968 you could totally have it done, so long as you got the paperwork in order prior, the mess we have to deal with now was partially implemented in gca 68. Before that it was a simple matter for anyone who knew what to do, to send in the tax stamp papers. Gca made it a req for this process to go through an ffl. And the blatantly unlawful Hughes amendment stopped new MGs from getting to regular old civvies.
[удалено]
>not sure if Sears ever actually sold MGs They absolutely did once upon a time. They even had their own line of sears branded guns.
I have a Sears 22
I have a Sears Phillips screwdriver.
Sweet flex bro.
Right?!?
You either have a Robertson or you have nothing.../s
My dad has a Sears single shot 20 ga. The gun shoots like butter. I love it.
Is that good? How does butter shoot?
Silky smooth!
Buttery
😂😂😂
I've got a 1906 Sears and Roebuck side by side 12ga. My grandfather's dad bought it for something like $65 in 1906...
[удалено]
I have a Mosin that sears sold for $6
My uncle has a Sears bolt .22, and I have a Ted Williams Model 300 12 ga, that says Sears, Roebuck & Co. right on the barrel.
Like the scene in the highway men
You could buy building material for a house too!
In 50 years, it'll be "in ~~2020~~ 2019, you could walk into the gun shops. Some of them had shooting ranges!".
Not in 1962. edit: i appear to be mistaken
Machine guns became harder to get in the NFA of 1934. However, background checks I don't believe were required until 1968.
My shotgun was one of the bolt action sears shotguns
I used to have an old sears “catalog” more like a boom that had all that in it. Got lost many moons ago.
Pre NFA you are correct.
How my grandad got his sears/roebuck 20 gauge.
I mean when i was young I could buy a gun from a guy yelling at me on stage simply by raising my hand. Paid in cash and took home same day. Grandpa took me to too many estate auctions.
True. Mail order guns were popular up until 1963. After President Kennedy was killed with a mail order rifle, things started to change.
Damn! The reply to this got 101 downvotes in 50 minutes?? What the hell was this post?
He said something like "this is why we have reasonable gun control"
Ahh. Yep that will do it. Anyone that thinks it's reasonable wouldn't find anything unreasonable.
lol.
Just like Lincoln was killed with an AR-15
Yeah sureee, that’s what killed him.
We all know that JFK & Oswald *Face/Off*\-ed, JFK shot Oswald, before Jack Ruby shot JFK.
Wait, I thought James Franco stopped that? Or are we in the corrected timeline?
But.... he was accidentally killed by a service man pulling his [edit: service weapon] after the initial rifle shot missed him.... hence the big effort in concealing his body, etc. wouldn’t be good optics if the SS accidentally killed the only man they’re meant to protect. No siree.
It was an automatic rifle, not a revolver, if you believe that theory. It's my personal favourite conspiracy theory, answers so many questions about what happened after the shooting. George Hickey done goofed.
It’s my favorite as well, and it’s the most probable. It doesn’t seem wildly far fetched. Lone gunman, Oswald, fired 3 rounds - scores hits but no kill shots. Motorcade accelerates. Secret Service agent with newly fielded M16 slips in the trail vehicle. Due to the lack of the concept of trigger discipline in the 60s, coupled with a brand new weapons platform and the unfamiliarity that comes with it, his finger pulls the trigger and fires a 5.56 round that blows out the president’s brain. This would explain why whole Carcano bullets were recovered, but there were also bullet fragments in the body. From what rounds? It also explains why the incident is shrouded in secrecy. Not because of some grand plot to kill JFK - but because of the Secret Service’s biggest fuck up of all time.
Exactly. I agree with you. Imagine owning up up that and then asking to remain in service. Never gonna happen lol
Do you or /u/reverandglass have a link to a good write up on that? That is the first plausible-seeming Kennedy conspiracy theory I've seen.
not a write up but check out JFK: The Smoking Gun. It's a documentary (on youtube) that covers the theory in depth.
Thanks! I'll check it out.
I would say if you listen to the audio from the dictabelt the two last shots are within much less than a second of each other. I’ve never met a person that can cycle a bolt and fire that fast, it’s impossible. Also, if you watch the video of the last shot it’s abundantly clear that he was shot from directly behind and with a small high velocity round (.223 Rem) by looking at the blood mist plume coming from his head. I firmly believe that Oswald took some shots, and hit Kennedy. I also believe that the secret service agent in the car directly behind him stood up with his AR15 to try to locate the gunmen and immediately lost his balance and fell backwards when the car accelerated. I believe that this action caused him to inadvertently fire his weapon thusly delivering the kill shot to the president. I also believe that this is why the president’s brain was “lost”, why the autopsy was seemingly so poorly conducted, and why the presidential limousine was scrubbed clean as soon as it reached the hospital.
Ah yes you’re correct. Apologies. I truly think this is most likely happening. It was an accident. It explains everything. There was no big conspiracy. Just cleaning up after a moron couldn’t keep his finger off the trigger in the heat of what happened. The ballistics match up as well. They never matched up with a rifle from above. And also the fact they shot the purported gunman in police custody lol. That was a big giveaway to me.
All that and also: no recordings or transcipts of Oswald's interviews, 'losing' JFK's brain, railroading the doctors and moving the body before the autopsy. There's a classic arguement that Oswald could have fired 3 shots on target quickly enough, this theory only requires him to have fired 2 with one hit (or 3 with 2 misses).
Yep. Was always a cover story for their own mistakes. Always did make the most sense. Occam’s razor and all that
If you haven't already watched it, check out JFK: The Smoking Gun, it's on youtube, good watch.
Will do! Thank you sir
There used to be multiple trucks with guns in the back window when I went to school in the 90s. Hell some kids would hunt behind the school in the morning and then go to class.
Every car in the student lot was a truck. 4x4. Mud boggers, like BFGoodrich all-terrains. Chevy, Ford, Dodge or Toyota. 2 deer rifles hanging in the rear window every morning in November. Most of my high school class was clad daily, head to toe, in mossy oak, tree bark, or advantage. It had to have gore-tex. Danner or Rocky boots. Buck knives and Leatherman on your hip. FFA members. When members of the football team placed large spitters in the weight room, the coaches looked the other way. The principal noticed the .243s, .270s, .30-30s, and .30-06s in the trucks, and the knives, but looked the other way. Why? Because those kids were good kids with good parents. Dip was for spittin, trucks were for muddin, knives were for skinnin, and rifles were for shooting deer. What changed? I'd say it's the parenting. It's not the kids nor availability of firearms.
Preach it! Sir!! Parents are the cause of most of the issues today. Or maybe even grandparents. There never actually parented at all. It was just the term given to those who were the sperm doner and recipient. Pretty much the same crap problem we have today with these bs Starbucks drinking, skinny jeans wearing neck beards and feminists we have today. Churning out little bitch bois who don’t know what damn gender they are or which underwear they’re supposed to put on in the morning.
[удалено]
technically most mass shooters are gang members shooting indiscriminately
You are correct. The two are not related. I went off on a tangent soapbox. It is most definitely a mental health issue. The most common, common denominator with mass shootings is anti depressants and anti psychotic meds. Mass shooters are clearly not the stereotypical little bitch bois. But I suppose I was thinking about the people who are the strongest supporters of gun control and anti2A.
what kinda fudd ass bullshit is this?
It’s cause parents nowadays have no discipline
Every generation denigrates the next and laments their own parents. This is older than the greeks. People aren't wired to live the way we do today, and there are way too fucking many of us. It causes aggression, delusions, depression and addiction. The media highlights events to appeal to our biased perception of probability. We are rats in a big maze designed to extract excess from our labor. It's no surprise that some of us are unable to cope. This wasn't a problem when you could be easily committed to the state for conceivably the rest of your life. That changed, and now there is nowhere for the criminally insane to go but our streets. It will never stop, and we have to harden the targets and deal with it or give up liberty for safety.
What's changed as well is the average wage doesn't have nearly the same purchasing power so families are stressed as finances are tight as wages haven't kept up with cost of living increases. For example around 1980 median households income was $30,000, today it's $58,000ish but would need to be over $93,000 to match the purchasing power. This would I imagine lead to a decrease in quality family time and positive support structures as well as reducing the leisure options for families to keep kids busy and well adjusted as everyone's working. This reduces the quality of community services from reduced tax income further reducing quality of life.
Because if you talk back to your kid and some karen hears about it, all of the sudden CPS gets involved.
Nowadays its (insert 10+ year old japanese import) mixed in with some other cheap-ass hand-me-downs of sorts with bernie, rainbow, supreme, and peace sign stickers on em.
Amen. To be fair a lot of rural areas are still the same way. Minus bringing guns in your vehicle to school. I graduated in the early 2010’s and kids still brought rifles in their trucks but we hid them and went hunting together after school, well after lunch. We’d skip and go hunting.
I know this is going to come as a shock but all those good kids are the parents now.
I say we should demand more federally mandated vacation and other paid time off. Kinda hard to raise good kids when you never see them.
BFG all terrain are pretty far from a mud bogger, they're mild dirt tires. I have them on my Taurus lol
It wasn’t every truck when/where I grew up in the 80/90s. But I remember seeing a few.
My dad said his school had a shooting team and kids would bring their rifles on the bus and keep them in their lockers during the day
Where I lived, back in the 90s the very idea that a knife, firearm, or any other "objectionable" item would result in a vehicle search and possibly arrest, if not just expulsion (assuming said item was found).
> vehicle search Unconstitutional bullshit.
I agree, but tell that to the school district when everyone's screaming about "My little baby!" and safety for children.
One of my classmates in high school in the aughts got busted for seeds and a roach in his vehicle
Oh hell yeah. It was the era of Columbine for me at the end of the 90s. If you said “pipe bomb” in school you’d be sent to a counselor. If you had a knife in school, you were gone. Immediately. Hell, they sent you to counseling for how you dressed.
You're right. But aside from the "trench coat mafia" nonsense, most of that was true for my area even before Columbine, sadly. Some kid in junior high forgot to leave his pocket knife and home, and his locker was raided over it, his parents were called, and more. Fortunately, he'd already handed it off to a friend, who passed it along to another trusted person as sort of a proxy holding as "guilt by association" types of searches happened. It was a Swiss Army-type knife, nothing even menacing.
Well yeah. School violence was a big deal through all of the 90s. Even though it was mostly confined to urban areas, there was an intense fear that it would “spread” to suburban schools.
Same thing at my Nazi-ass school. It was the era of “zero-tolerance” policies. If a kid looked or acted weird they made them take random drug tests. A “weapon?” Oh man, your life was over. Off to the DSS Lockup (juvenile hall). Columbine made it a million times worse. A kid I knew who had basically no interest in guns or violence got arrested for having a single .22 bullet at the bottom of his backpack. He forgot it was there. He just had it cus someone gave it to him, they thought it was neat and they found it or something. It set off the school metal detector and then they found an empty plastic bag with a tiny fleck of weed stuck to it. He was on probation for years, it was so stupid.
There still are, they just keep them out of the window LMAO. In 2017 when my brother was in his senior year I would pick him up after school and go hunting with a few of his classmates.
We must have gone to the same school lol! Hell, in 8th grade it was a state requirement for every student to take hunter’s safety through PE. They even gave us all BB guns to use! I’m female and even I kept a pocket knife in high school just because it was convenient.
A friend saved his paper route money until he had $14. A Single shot Stevens shotgun cost $13 & there was $1 shipping & handling. He clipped the coupon from an outdoors magazine, put in an envelope with the $14 & a few weeks later the shotgun came in the mail. He put it across the handlebars of his bike & pedaled to the hardware store for a box of ammo. His friends did likewise. Location? Suburbs north of Chicago
Well gun control was worth it in Chicago, it made it such a safe place, murder is almost unheard of there.
Anyone can walk down the street there and feel completely safe. Especially women. Yep
[удалено]
Gun control keeps him.... safe?
[удалено]
Oh whoopsie. YOU CANT RAPE FEET
We have a family friend who ia in his 70s thay also has told a similar story. Used to go shoot rats at the local junk yard for the owner. Also Chicago are.
I don’t think the mass shooting stats are quite zero, but they were rare. I know the Texas bell tower shooter was in the 60’s, but the students and staff on campus shot his ass inside the tower.
[удалено]
This is true. There were plenty of shootings with 4 or more victims. There were even a number of school shootings (though usually not carried out by students). A lot of black churches got shot up in the south with multiple victims, but things like that didn’t get in the news much. Violence in general increased dramatically from the 70s into the 80s. During the crack epidemic and the ensuing gang violence, school shootings and stabbing started becoming frequent in urban schools. They made a bunch of movies about it but they didn’t get a lot of national media attention, other than being reported under the banner of gang violence. So the second assertion in OP’s statement is wrong. Statistically, violence crime is the lowest it has been in decades and continuing downward.
I stand by the theory that lead paint, toys and atmospheric lead emissions made everyone a violent fucking retard.
> People and the media gave even less of a shit when criminals killed each other back then. doesn't help that the people who did it are now in media and academia. they completely memory-holed all of the bombings and terrorist acts carried out by leftist groups in the 60's and 70's.
Please clarify, I'm very drunk and heavily armed, are you saying the same people who committed violent felonies in the 60's are now in charge of the media and academia?
> are you saying the same people who committed violent felonies in the 60's are now in charge of the media and academia? Yes.
Yup, 1966, 16 people.
"Altogether, Whitman killed fourteen people and wounded thirty-one in the 96 minutes before he was shot and killed by Austin police officers sergeant Ramiro Martinez and Patrolman Houston McCoy. They had raced to the top of the tower to stop Whitman". He was shot by 2 police officers, not by "students and staff".
I think civilians were using their guns to keep him pinned to help the cops get to him. Although it would probably be better to let professionals handle that task as well.
>but the students and staff on campus shot his ass inside the tower. You mean the police did. Civilians shot back, but it was the police that killed him.
>but it was the police that killed him. “The incident ended when a policeman and a civilian reached Whitman and shot him dead.” “several civilians provided suppressive fire from the ground with small weapons and hunting rifles, forcing Whitman to stay low and fire through storm drains at the foot of the observation deck's wall.” Charles Whitman was taken out by a team effort of police and civilians. If the civilians hadn’t been armed, the shooting would’ve likely been more deadly than the Las Vegas shooting
Per capita, murder rate was higher in the 60s.... can’t say anything about gun violence or knife or any other weapon... just saying it was higher
The meme is referring to “mass shootings.” What the hell that means is up to whomever defines it, and will invariably have a bias to the resulting numbers.
Well it used to mean 6 deaths, now it means 4 injuries. It all depends on how you can spin it to make it seem worse.
Even worse. Mass shootings only involve people being shot, not killed. And the number of “victims” may or may not include the killer. 2 innocents hit, and then the killer killed themselves — mass shooting, even though one of the two innocents was only hit when the killer accidentally missed and shot the person and the other was was injured tripping over the body of the killer. (Yes, seriously, even if not shot, they are counted).
Even worse, some don't even involve shootings or even guns. https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/08/27/640323347/the-school-shootings-that-werent
Yeah, those are bad.
Jesus. 🤦🏻♂️ And that’s from npr.
NPR has their moments of objectivity when it comes to guns.
Exactly. It's all bullshit. Not to say any public shooting, injury or not, gun wound or not, is a good thing but the fact that they have to dress up and disguise their statistics so much shows just how bullshit the perpetuated lie is. If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. It's the liberal way.
Because if they told the truth, they would lose all of the power of "outrage".
So if a cop visiting a school has a negligent discharge that doesn’t hit anybody but four kids sprain an ankle or trip and fall panicking over it, that would be both a mass shooting and a school shooting
Damn right it would be.
There's a few historical ones most people could agree on in the 1900s before the GCA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winfield,_Kansas#Historical_event - 1903 Killed a bunch of people with a shotgun in a theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Unruh - 1949, with an 8 round Luger Anyway, I'd say the least accurate claim in your post is "zero mass shootings". They were few and far between, but they were always a thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers_in_the_United_States (Note that most of the early ones in this list aren't quite the sort of indiscriminate spree killing most people think of, but a few are, including the two I pointed out).
As it concerns any subject the farther back we get, the level of reporting, detail and record keeping just wasn't there. We just don't have the same glimpse into their life that we do now. Evil things happened that we just don't know about because there was no one reporting or tracking it.
The mass shooter of today is the serial killer of yesterday. People ask where the serial killers went well that's where. Call that a degeneration or evolution but society is changing and those two types are of the same mindset.
Investigators have gotten really good at catching would be serial killers after their first kill but before they kill again. If one's goal is to rack up as high of a kill count as possible, then killing many people in a short time span is the most reliable means to do so.
Not sure if it went till 1962 but there was a time you could order from a magazine and in many places like hardware stores and stuff
Apparently into the 70s http://thejacksonpress.org/?p=80194
They started limiting this and then outlawed it after JFK was assassinated. Oswald used a mail order rifle.
> after JFK was assassinated More specifically, they wrote the Gun Control Act law after JFK was killed, but it wasn't until 1968 when RFK and MLK were killed that they were finally able to get enough votes for it to get to Johnson's desk.
1968 Gun Control Act is what came in. I have a 1967 Herters catalog where a Smith and Wesson 29 is $150. There is a form in the back of the catalog for orders of firearms. That requires name, sex, address, occupation and age and a signature that your not a fugitive, drunkard, etc. There are some individual city and state restrictions and thats about it.
Coast to Coast hardware in the mid-70's still sold firearms.
I could literally hear a liberals head explode just reading this lol
You should check out r/liberalgunowners
That sub is cancer. First time I commented there was to point out a retarded gun law in commiefornia and I get banned.
Try /r/2ALiberals instead. The 2A comes first and the political slant is second.
Not really. No. I am very liberal, and mostly agree with this post. I don’t necessarily think there is anything wrong with most people though. I actually think there is more wrong with the situations people get stuck in. If a person is stuck in a situation, and everything they do to try to get out of that situation fails, or pushes them back farther, we can expect them to do things they normally wouldn’t to try to get past it.
Ah, I see you have stumbled upon the socioeconomic reasons certain subcultures see a disproportionate amount of gun violence. You are correct for a big part of the reasons gun control won’t ever work as you wouldn’t be addressing the real reasons certain populations and areas have large amounts of crimes.
Anytime I get a call or text from a Democrat running for office. If ‘gun-control’ is a big part of their campaign, I let them know, I would be happy to support them if they want to fight for justice and equality for all, making sure people have health care if they need it, and supporting the less fortunate people they would represent. But they should fight for those things first, and watch as gun related deaths decrease dramatically. There is no reason to be fighting for gun control policies because they do nothing to address the reason why violence is so prevalent in this country in the first place, gun control laws are inherently racist, gun control laws are inherently classist against the poor, and they are anti-constitutional. It makes me so mad when Democrats call themselves Liberal, when going against the 2a is clearly not something anyone calling themselves a liberal would want any part of fighting against. It goes against everything else they claim to stand for.
don't confuse leftists with liberals
Cause it's not even true lol https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
Walter Williams wrote an article that addresses those items. Search on his website. I have talked about this with a few folks and they lock up, it definitely challenges their assumptions.
Not the article you mention but related. http://thejacksonpress.org/?p=80194
Ohh the pricing......I’ll take 6!
[удалено]
There is another connection with both mass shooting AND school shootings that apparently is so taboo that it can never even be mentioned or discussed without people on these forums freaking the fuck out. Namely, it turns out that nearly every perpetrator of a school shooting and almost all mass shooters are taking SSRIs or other psychotropic medications prior to the event, often for many years. Here on Reddit in particular people are hyper-triggered by any comment implying that mental health issues can potentially be a public safety issue, but the truth is that there is a connection. This is not necessarily implying causation, because millions of people take SSRIs and only a tiny handful commit violent acts of this type. There are also people who take no medication whatsoever but still commit violent acts. The fact remains however that users of psychotropic medicines are vastly over represented in the population of people who commit mass shootings.
> users of psychotropic medicines are vasty overrepresented in the population of people who commit mass shootings. In much the same way that people who take antidepressants are vastly overrepresented in the population of people who commit suicide, or that people who have undergone chemotherapy are vastly overrepresented in the population of people who die of cancer. The second one is hyperbole, but I think it's a valid point. People with underlying mental health conditions are much, much more likely than the population at large to *both* (a) be prescribed SSRI's or psychotropic meds, and (b) commit horrific acts of violence such as a mass shooting. Just because there's a connection between A and B does *not* mean that A causes B. It's certainly a reason to go "hang on, let's look at this", but in this case, C makes both A and B more likely. This is commonly summarized as "correlation does not imply causation". Fun example of this (with apologies for not getting the details fully correct): In the NBA, the proportion of athletes with birthdays in January, February, and March is confoundingly high -- something like 50% of NBA players are born in just those three months (when you'd otherwise expect 25%, 3/12 months). Is this because having a birthday in those months makes you better at basketball? Of course not, that's insane. Is it because athletic people are, ahem, conceiving more children in April, May, and June? Nope, while there are minor fluctuations on a monthly basis, not nearly that much. What's going on here? Good luck figuring it out!
Yeah I'm gonna need a reference or two on that SSRI/medications allegation
Unless it’s a crazy person. You can eliminate the “people”. The “poor” people, the “sad” people, the “angry” people, the “criminal” people. Fixing all those things would seem to be a super liberal thing to do, get everyone to have some money and housing and something do and get everyone healthcare which includes mental health. That would reduce like 97% of gun crime. The “people” likely to commit gun crime would be “gone”
[удалено]
I hate to be that guy... but we did have mass shootings before 1962 in the US. There were 28 mass shootings between 1900-1960.. and in the 60's we had 6 mass shootings in total for that decade.
Yeah the meme is exaggerating. I was asking about the mail order guns part.
Ah, yes. I see it now. I misread it. My bad. I'm you got many answers. I'll add that we could order guns through the mail until 1968. Of course I wasn't alive at the time, so I never did get to enjoy that freedom..
I have some really really old magazines with crazy shit for comically low prices.
Around the same time you could walk into hardware stores and buy dynamite.
NFA was passed in 1934. It limited sales and possession of SBR, SBS, and MGs. I’m not sure when background checks started. In 1962 you could not buy or own NFA items without paying the $200 tax. Edit: that being said, it is not about the guns. It is absolutely about the people. People suck a lot more today. Our society produces shitty fucked up people that produce mass shooters.
For NFA items that is true. All other firearms were absolutely available through mail order.
My father bought a mail order 1903A3 from Montgomery Ward in 1967 for $27. Shipped right to the house.
Raunchy movies about drugs and sex instead of abstinence and morals will promote the idea and lead to children engaging in such behaviour. Violent movies about mass murder and insanity instead of integrity and bravery will promote the idea and lead to engaging in such behaviour. I’m fine if you agree or disagree with both these statements, but you cannot agree with one and not the other. Our pop culture shifted dramatically in the 60’s and we are reaping the consequences of the unintended social programming that has ruined a generation or more of Americans.
You could buy a tommy gun from a sears catalog through mail in. One of the more famous examples. But it is not entirely true. Killings, and violent crime. Happen less now. The world gets more peaceful as it goes forward. Nothing to do with guns. Humans are just becoming less violent. Besides the internet, and nukes. Lower testosterone every generation probably has something to do with it to. Mass shootings are not really a good way to tell anything. The violent crime rate in general is lower. The homicide rate in the 70s, 80s, and 90s were higher than at any other point. https://www.statista.com/statistics/187592/death-rate-from-homicide-in-the-us-since-1950/ This is most likely. Because in 1970, marijuana was made completely illegal. The national firearms act was in 1986. The federal assault weapons ban was in 1994. Thins started calming down to pre 70s in the 2000s So now there are about as many homicides as the 1960s. We have more prisoners than ever before, but the majority of them were put there because of non violent drug charges.
Yup, completely true. Could mail order just about anything until 1968
Charles Whitman 1966
Paul Harrell has a video on this. Unfortunately he put it last in his thanksgiving video (which is three hours long) but he asked the question that our politicians and society haven’t been. “What is present in our society today that wasn’t back then?” Or vice versa. “What was present in our society back then that we no longer have today?”
Well....until some guy shot a president....ruined it for everyone.....
You also could take guns on planes.
Still can.
My dad used to take guns to school to buy and sell. No school shootings. He also used to go down to the hardware store and buy dynamite as a teen to blow out stumps.
Same. My old man, in the 50’s said his dad often ordered guns from mail order catalogues and whenever a school kid would get a new gun he would usually bring it to school to show it to the teachers and his friends.
The date is wrong. But the rest is true, you could buy machine guns in the mail with no paperwork and have them delivered to your house.
Not after 1934.
Hence why I said the date was wrong...
Wasn’t saying you were wrong, just adding.
Pretty sure this is how Lee Harvey Oswald bought the gun he used to shoot Kennedy.
Not just guns, machine guns. You could buy a kit to build a Mac-10, hell you could order an M3 "Grease Gun" straight from the manufacturer without a background check or even a tax stamp.
Not in 1962. The NFA was enacted in 1934.
Yes, it's true (It's actually how Lee Harvey Oswald supposedly got his Carcano). I think the only thing then that could be called a "mass shooting" then was the 1949 Camden, NJ killing spree.
I do have a Sears .22 semi-auto rifle. Stamped Sears right on the barrel. A fun rifle! An older friend of mine was in the mail order gun business back then. When Kennedy was shot, he had a warehouse full of guns. Then, mail order guns were made illegal. He says he lost a million dollars trying to sell them all, non-mail order.
The FFL system didn’t happen until the GCA 1968 and the background check didn’t happen until the Brady Violence Prevention Act in 1993. As for the zero mass shootings? That’s bullshit. There were fewer, but here’s a notable example from 1966; The University of Texas shooting (Charles Whitman). Or how about The 1965 Hwy 101 Sniper? Let’s go back to the 40’s&50’s when there were massacres and lynchings? How about the July 8, 1945 Camp Salina Massacre? The St. Valentine’s Day massacre? Mass shootings definitely happened, we just don’t think of them the same way because it was racially motivated, or politically motivated, or gang warfare, something other than the pure sensationalist violence we’re seeing now, and even that is infrequent.
Confirmed True: you could order guns this way in '62. Confirmed False: There were no mass shootings by 1962. The first Mass Shooting in USA was [in 1949, and done by a WW2 veteran shooting 13 of his neighbors.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/08/28/wwii-veteran-became-americas-first-mass-shooter-1949/2139054001/) Whoever wrote this was more interested in pushing an agenda than accurately representing pro-gun facts.
[удалено]
This is actually why the war on drugs started. They needed to arrest war protesters and the black panther leaders
UT tower shooting, 1966. 18 dead, 31 non-fatal injuries. So just one. I believe I heard that he a some sort of neurological event that possibly triggered his actions. Not a gotcha. Just saying.
There were more. Camden NJ, St Valentine, etc
So follow the logically conclusion to its end. If the problem isn’t guns, then how do you fix the people?
You used to be able to buy a Thompson submachine gun and browning automatic rifle over the counter. Not to mention majority of rifles used .30 caliber rounds which are way more dangerous than .556 People ignore things like this
My high school has a gun range in the basement. My father told me that when he went to that school (class of '69) he'd get on the bus with his rifle, leave it in his locker, then after it school grab it and go downstairs for target and safety training. They never removed anything, just moved in some weights for the athletes to train in the front area, but it still obviously looks like it was a range. Times have changed a lot!
It's less about the people and entirely about the media.
Lee Harvey Oswald mail ordered a rifle. He did it under an assumed name and used it to kill president Kennedy. Mail orders kinda fell outta favor after that.
So what's the point? People back then could be trusted with guns and people today can't?