Nearly All Mass Shooters Since 1966 Have Had 4 Things in Common
- Thread starter ChrisKnight06
- Start date
There are many guns clearly designed for sport shooting , hunting etc . To say otherwise I’d disengenuous . Calibers like .22 , .410 etc were clearly not designed with killing humans in mass quantities . Also all the single shots etc etc etc . Bolt action rifles of any caliber don’t even fit the bullshit description I was responding to
If you could create a fair red flag law that took guns away from unstable people until they could prove their mental health had improved, you would get support from the left and the right.
The problem is that the far left cannot be trusted as they would turn that law into a gun grab (you cussed at somebody in public? lose your guns!) and the far right knows this and won't give an inch.
The other problem is that mental health is such a heavily guarded condition with privacy laws that you cannot have access to somebody's records quick enough to take away their guns. If if their records were accessible, the mental health community would freak and (rightfully so) state that people will be reticent to seek mental help if they think their rights will be taken away.
And thus ... the problem. Unstable people should not have guns ... but how do you get them in a fair and respectful way?
The problem is that the far left cannot be trusted as they would turn that law into a gun grab (you cussed at somebody in public? lose your guns!) and the far right knows this and won't give an inch.
The other problem is that mental health is such a heavily guarded condition with privacy laws that you cannot have access to somebody's records quick enough to take away their guns. If if their records were accessible, the mental health community would freak and (rightfully so) state that people will be reticent to seek mental help if they think their rights will be taken away.
And thus ... the problem. Unstable people should not have guns ... but how do you get them in a fair and respectful way?
Red flag laws have the root issue that they remove a constitutional right and make the target of the red flag prove that they are able to exercise that right. That’s a dangerous precedent to set. In all other cases, we have the right and the government has to prove that they have legal reason to take it away. I’d be all for due process occurring on the red flag law before the seizure, but not after.
lol really? There are far more guns in Texas cities like Houston than there are in Chicago, and yet the number of homicide victims in Houston is less than half that of Chicago. Chicago has anywhere between 500-700 people killed annually whereas Houston is between 200-250 total. These are similar sized cities, only one city has far more firearms ownership, and it's the city with far less people being killed every year. And I'm using Texas specifically because you waded into this by throwing Texas around as some sort of example.
You accuse me of being a "partisan hack" yet you're deliberately trying to spin Chicago into being something it's not. Wonder why?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...rd-black-friday-gun-check-numbers/4346609002/
FBI posts big Black Friday gun check numbers; second-largest single day in program history
In all, the bureau posted 202,465 checks Friday, an 11% increase from last year and falling just short of the single-day record: 203,086 in 2017.
unfortunately i did not purchase a new gun this year, but this news warms my heart. just so everyone knows, that is enough background checks to arm the entire active us marine corps.
FBI posts big Black Friday gun check numbers; second-largest single day in program history
In all, the bureau posted 202,465 checks Friday, an 11% increase from last year and falling just short of the single-day record: 203,086 in 2017.
unfortunately i did not purchase a new gun this year, but this news warms my heart. just so everyone knows, that is enough background checks to arm the entire active us marine corps.
I am not making it out to be something its not, obviously it has problems. I am calling out conservatives such as yourself who has this fascination with Chicago, but not with Memphis, New Orleans, mass shootings in Texas, or anywhere that has loose gun laws. The reason you wont bring up those places is because it defeats the narrative you are trying to paint.
https://www.usatoday.com/picture-ga.../25-most-dangerous-cities-america/1669467002/
BTW, Houston is the 22st most violent city in America, Chicago 21st. Chicago does have more homicides, but violent crime as a whole Houston is basically the same as Chicago. Texas gun laws in Houston clearly don't cause less violence.
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
Way to move the goalposts yet again. I don't factor in "mass shootings" because frankly it's irrelevant when looking at particular cities. A mass shooting can occur virtually anywhere, all you need is a deranged lunatic and a firearm and there you go. It's not indicative of a city.
What is indicative is chronic, year after year large number of homicides and thousands of people shot annually. If you want to look at Memphis and NO then have at it, they're two more cities long run by Democrats who have these same issues.
Your last comment is just dumb. Violent crime is a broad, generalized term that tells you nothing about effectiveness of gun laws. The fact still remains that a city with far more firearms owned yields 50% less homicides than Chicago with ultra tight gun laws.
Way to move the goalposts yet again. I don't factor in "mass shootings" because frankly it's irrelevant when looking at particular cities. A mass shooting can occur virtually anywhere, all you need is a deranged lunatic and a firearm and there you go. It's not indicative of a city.
What is indicative is chronic, year after year large number of homicides and thousands of people shot annually. If you want to look at Memphis and NO then have at it, they're two more cities long run by Democrats who have these same issues.
Your last comment is just dumb. Violent crime is a broad, generalized term that tells you nothing about effectiveness of gun laws. The fact still remains that a city with far more firearms owned yields 50% less homicides than Chicago with ultra tight gun laws.
Of course you don't factor in mass shootings, they are primarily done by white people and that doesn't help the narrative you are trying to paint. Not that I am surprised, Republicans clearly don't care about mass shootings either, so why would you? Anyway, you aren't a serious person, so have at it with someone who will buy up your BS.
I love how you took a study that constrained "mass shootings" to single-person shooter without any connection to gangs, terrorism, domestic violence, workplace discontent, etc. and state as a fact that mass shootings are primarily done by white people. Sure, when you constrain it so far, of course you can get that result. Add in the rest of the mass shooting events that weren't filtered out by that one study and the demographics change.
Huh? I didn't cite a study, I was mostly being a smartass, so I have no clue what you are talking about. But I am the one who wants all shootings counted when looking at this issue, 85 is the one who wants to ignore certain shootings because it doesn't fit his narrative. So if you are going to lecture someone about honesty then maybe go for the guy who flat out admitted he only counts the shootings he wants to count when he looks at violence.
I didn't catch the smartassery in that post and i truly appreciate smartassery. Damn.
ChrisKnight pushed out a study a week or two ago and I assumed that you were referencing that in your point. I don't like filtering out the events in either direction when making sweeping statements because that tends to lead to people supporting bad policies and knee jerk reactions. If 85 is doing this as well, then I don't think that's good either.
85 says he doesn't factor in mass shootings because they can happen anywhere. That logic seems to imply other shootings can't happen anywhere, which is of course a dumb argument. I am pretty sure he doesn't count mass shootings because it would force him to take a look at gun laws in Texas and other places Texas prides itself on the # of guns in the state, yet seems to have these massing shootings on a pretty regular basis. Dallas, Santa Fe HS, El Paso, the church shooting, etc etc all just happened in the last few years. If the loose gun laws prevented violence, this wouldn't happen.
https://www.elpasotimes.com/in-dept...walmart-odessa-sutherland-springs/4008425002/
Mass shootings do get a disproportionate number of headlines. Using the FBI's mass shooting definition, 85 people were killed by mass shooters in 2018. The Violence Project has that number as 373 (gleaned from media coverage IIRC). Compare that with the overall number of gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters being almost 11,000 in 2017 (let's also remember that the FBI numbers rely on voluntary reporting and captures maybe 90% of police agencies) and I can understand why some might claim that the threat from mass shooters is overstated. 85 is right that mass shooters seems more random and less predictable (look at the differences among the Pulse shooting, Las Vegas, El Paso, the guy shooting cops in Dallas, and the guy shooting up the Republican baseball practice). It's hard to make policies for that although getting to some commonalities such as the Secret Service's study can help to figure it out. OTOH, there are patterns of regular violence in communities of all ethnic background that can be worked on. So the question is, where do we put our efforts?
Of course they get a disproportionate amount of headlines. Anytime numerous people are killed it is going to get more headlines. Plane crashes get more headlines than car crashes, even though more people die in car crashes yearly. The news, at least on a national level, cannot cover every single shooting across the country.
We should put our efforts into having fewer guns in circulation period, and getting away from this obsession with guns this country has. We won't do that, so it is a moot point. At this point America just accepts gun violence as normal.
by the low estimates, we have around 300 million guns in circulation and probably a trillion rounds of ammo. this year marked the second highest number of background checks in a day for gun purchases; 202,465. That is more than enough to arm the entire active duty us marine corps.
id be curious what you plan would be to reduce that number? because apparently you think the guns are the actual problem.
Of course I think guns, or rather access to guns, are the actual problem. The only things that can be done would be buy back programs and things of that nature, and just more strict laws making it more difficult to get guns in the first place. But again, its all moot because none of it is going to happen. We live in a country where gun violence is acceptable.
and what do you say about the 500,000 to 2,000,000 defensive gun uses every single year?
What about them? And link? Nobody is saying we need to ban all guns, that was never suggested. Just that we have an unhealthy obsession with guns and almost a paranoia about people being out to get us, so we have to have small arsenals to protect ourselves.
According to Pew, 30% of American adults say they own at least one gun. 2/3rds of those own more than one gun and 29% of those own more than 5. I'd like to see statistics showing how many people committing gun murders are in theat 2/3rds group, much less the 29%. The overwhelming majority of people in those groups have never committed a crime with a gun. So taking away all of their weapons is pointless and you're creating criminals out of law abiding people if they don't give them up.
Also, you say that we have an unhealthy obsession with guns. For those of us who have never used a gun in a crime and keep our guns responsibly, what is unhealthy about our ownership? How about people that compete in shooting sports, are they unhealthy?
No, obviously everyone who owns a gun doesn't have an unhealthy obsession with it.
go look up obamas $10m gun violence study for yourself. my numbers come from there. on average there are around 300k violent crimes committed with guns. which is bigger, 300k or 500k? guns save lives. in fact they save more lives than they take. do you know how many gun deaths there are per year? find that out for me. then we can compare the low end of times guns are used defensively to it. even though the vast majority of the times they are used are for suicide, ill still let you include those.
Ill have to get to this later, especially since you want me to provide your sources for you. But let me just say, you are way over simplifying the study.
The fact that you think every mass shooting is committed by some white guy is telling. And yet you’re the one using the racism dog whistle.
The truth is that you only care about the “mass shootings” that make CNN.
i could easily give you the study. i want you to find it and read the numbers for yourself.
here is a hint. all my numbers are correct. there is a reason the media doesnt bring up obamas $10m cdc study. it debunks all your talking points.
surely you can find out how many deaths there are from guns each year without having to look up that study. please find that number.
lets compare xx,xxx number of gun deaths per year vs the low end number of defensive gun uses per year at 500,000.
If you post a link I will read them for myself but for some reason you refuse to do that, which is odd. But then you tell me to look up stuff for you? I don't work for you and I'm not your bitch, if you cant even be bothered to post a link you say you can easily post, then don't ask me to do things for you that you can also easily do for yourself. So have a good say dude, if you actually want to have a discussion let me know and do your part.
i totally get it. my numbers are right, and it makes your entire argument look bad. deep down, you know your argument is based on emotions and not facts. thus instead of bringing fact to your argument, you are picking up your ball and going home. i dont blame you.
No, you don't get it. You are going out of your way to make it impossible to have a discussion with, and then demanding me to look up stuff for you. I think I know why you won't post a link, but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and going to let you post your own information. But for some reason, you refuse to do that (again, I think I know why). I didn't say anything about your #s. But the study isn't just about raw #s, those are called statistics. So sure, people defend themselves with guns all the time, but what you wont acknowledge, is that with fewer guns in society, we wouldn't have to defend ourselves with guns nearly as often.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...sts-keep-citing-but-completely-misunderstand/
The New American Magazine article noted that "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008."
So it would appear the "good use" of guns outweighs the "bad use." That may be true, except the study says all of those statistics are in dispute -- creating, in the study authors' eyes, a research imperative.
Typical cubs: move the goalposts and then post an OP-ed that supports his bias.
Typical Crazyhole to have an ad hominem attack on someone without providing anything of substance what so ever. I didn't move the goal posts, if you read the conversation he is the one refusing to provide information, but thanks for adding so much to the conversation as usual.
I honestly don't know who is dumber. @UCFWayne or this idiot who thinks he can change ucfwaynes mind using facts and logic.
How have you not figured out yet that Wayne is just an inbred racist piece of shit?
Arguing with him is like arguing with a doorknob: no one is going to change their mind and you just look like an idiot for trying to debate an inanimate object.
You most certainly did move the goalposts when you asserted that if there are fewer guns there would be less reason to use one in defense.
I most certainly did not. The fact you don't realize that he didn't post his information for a reason (because it didn't say what he claims) just shows how naïve you are. But regardless, if you think I moved the goalposts so be it, I don't take you seriously anyway and couldn't possibly careless what you think.
The research says exactly what he claimed. You are dismissing it because they used estimates for defensive use, but the important point is that the lowest end of the estimate is still 60% higher than the use of guns in crimes. I could see being skeptical of the numbers if there was an overlap where defensive estimates drop to below the number of crimes, but that isn't the case. Its clear that guns are used for defense more than for crimes by even the most conservative estimate.
I didn't dismiss his #s and never said I was skeptical of his #s, you don't even know what you are arguing with me about, but of course that didn't stop you from jumping in anyway.
im glad you were finally able to find the study on your own. well at least an article disparaging it. even though obama paid for it. so you have some numbers to work with. im still trying to figure out why you cant use google.
because you are lazy, the number of people killed per year by guns is 36k, most are suicides, but ill let you keep those numbers.
pretend i went to usf. which number is higher 36k or 500k?
Im still trying to figure out why the dems keep focusing on those scary rifles. is it because they are black and thats why you dont like them?
either way, does anyone here know how many people are killed with those scary black rifles each year? i understand it can be very hard for some people to use google.
either way, does anyone here know how many people are killed with those scary black rifles each year? i understand it can be very hard for some people to use google.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Keyshawn Hall issues statement in support of Johnny Dawkins
- Latest: Knight_Light
-
-
-
-
