Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm pro cc, I just don't see any evidence that mass shooters or people who want to do damage choose a target because it is gun free.
That wasn't my point. My point was they simply want to take as many others with them hence targeting places that are ripe for opportunity.
You don't see them descending upon areas that allow concealed/open carry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cofor
Is it really that strange that there have been no mass shootings at the shooting range you attend? I have lived my entire life in many places and never encountered a mass shooting. I have never found it strange
Again, that wasn't my point. If you look at what I quoted what did the poster say?
They imply the shooters go into it wanting to die. No. If they wanted to die they'd simply off themselves, not take multiple others with them. Again, they choose schools, churches, movie theaters nightclub/bar. Places by law, or carry the weight of law, are gun free zones.
I'm suggesting address one of the most important things necessary to stop them before they even start their attack, which is incentive.
Gun free zone/area, provides quite an incentive for them to attack.
What I find strange is, if a gun free zone works, why are 99% of the shootings occurring on gun free zones
In science we test theories...
My theory is, remove incentive and allow people their right to self defense however they see fit giving them a fighting chance (dems used their theory of a fighting chance being reduced magazine capacity for the shooters will fumble the reload Maryland news paper proved that to be false).
The moment active shooters are put down starting their scumbag BS, it will resonate we will not tolerate your BS anymore.
Me, I want those scumbags to fear attempting a heinous attack. I want them to be the ones calling for gun control. Not the feeble who put faith in some law that will make millions into felons based on arbitrary features or rights be open to subjective emotional review.
Everyone focuses on weapon of choice when its a gun; there are many knife attacks, particularly by Muslims and by the Chinese in their own country.
There is a vlogger on Youtube named SerpentZA who mentioned in one of his videos that there are many, many mass knife or sword attacks in China, oftentimes at what we call grade schools or junior highs. Most of the attacks are by mentally ill people and the children are easy targets. SerpentZA said the Chinese government suppresses the news so it doesn't get out to the rest of the world. He believes there are many more mass knife attacks in China than there are mass shootings in the U.S..
SerpentZA and his buddy C-milk (goes by laowhy86 on Youtube) ride their motorcycles around China discussing various topics. They also have videos they do individually, sometimes with their Chinese wives. He's from South Africa originally and C-milk is from the U.S. I've gotten a different impression of China than I had before I watched their videos. Still not a place I'd want to live though, especially with the rise of nationalism in China. Off-topic but this is a sample of their videos. Their channel when they do videos together is ADVChina. Well worth watching: https://youtu.be/BcyYyyaPz84
"Of the 86 countries where we have identified mass public shootings, the US ranks 56th per capita in its rate of attacks and 61st in mass public shooting murder rate. Norway, Finland, Switzerland and Russia all have at least 45 percent higher rates of murder from mass public shootings than the United States."
So, the US ranks 56th out of 86. Even in the civilized world the US not first.
Hang on, hang on. Your guy started by removing all countries that didn't have any mass shootings at all from his statistics? You need to remove the countries with zero mass shootings from comparisons to feel good about yourself? If ever there was an example of "torture your data and they'll confess to anything", this was it.
If bans didn't work then we would see gun homicide rates in Europe and Australia match the US. It seems like the less common a weapon is, the less likely it is going to be used for criminal purposes. Hence we don't see violence via grenades and RPG's because...no one can get a hold of them. Whats the most commonly owned gun in America.....handguns. Whats the number one murder weapon of choice...handguns.
Those countries had lower crime rates even when guns were readily available there in the past. The UK for instance had gun laws comparable to most US states a century ago.
There are also plenty of countries with strict gun control and extremely high crime rates. Mexico, Russia, many South American nations, etc.
It doesn't matter if this country is number 1, 2, 3 or last. There is a big problem in this country with mass killings.
That's true but they've happened in states with strict gun laws. We can't legislate the problem away with gun laws. There's no easy fix. I truly believe its related to a combination of many societal and cultural problems in this country.
That's true but they've happened in states with strict gun laws. We can't legislate the problem away with gun laws. There's no easy fix. I truly believe its related to a combination of many societal and cultural problems in this country.
74% of all the guns used in crime in the state of New York comes from other states. Most of the states these guns come from have weak gun control in contrast to New York. The only two solutions are strict gun control at a Federal level or border regulations within inter-state commerce.
74% of all the guns used in crime in the state of New York comes from other states. Most of the states these guns come from have weak gun control in contrast to New York. The only two solutions are strict gun control at a Federal level or border regulations within inter-state commerce.
First off, please show evidence that 74% of the guns used in crimes came from outside the state. Secondly, even if this is the case, why aren't the surrounding states suffering from the same or worse crime rate?
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 4 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,188 posts, read 13,477,157 times
Reputation: 19518
Quote:
Originally Posted by cofor
It is absolutely shocking that a far right gun focused group would come to these conclusions.
I like how the article uses murder rate from mass shootings
"Norway, Finland, Switzerland and Russia all have at least 45 percent higher rates of murder from mass public shootings than the United States."
Well since the US has a ton more non mass shooting murders than 3 of those countries to begin with as well as a much larger population, yeah, I would assume that murders from mass shootings would be a higher percentage of their murders there.
Also hilarious is the notion that guns deter mass shooters. Most mass shooters go into it wanting to die.
Norway, Finland and Switzerland have the highest rates of gun ownership in Europe.
Finland and Norway even have more guns than Switzerland, and hunting is common in such countries, however these countries have few annual gun deaths.
The problem with John Lott and others who research for him is that the methodology which is basically nonsense. They exclude a lot of US Gun massacres whilst using selective years and even terrorist attacks to skew numbers in order to support a pro-gun agenda and have been criticised for it in the past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThinkProgress
Lott often claims that there is no difference between the frequency of public shootings in Europe and the United States. This is unabashedly false — but he continues to spread the falsehood anyway.
In February, he made the claim before the Tennessee Senate. “Most people may not realize this, but the rate of mass public shootings in Europe is actually fairly similar to the rate in the United States,” he said. “There is no statistically significant difference there, either in terms of the rate or fatalities.”
A couple of months earlier, he said something similar to the Wahington Post, which quickly highlighted that his analysis was quite different from that of other experts in the field. As the Post noted, while Lott said the per capita rates of mass shootings in Europe and the United States were approximately the same, another researcher found the U.S. rate to be five times higher. The Post explained that the gulf between the results was due to Lott and the other researcher using different definitions.
Lott’s carefully crafted criteria to include an incident as a mass shooting is highly suspect. Lott goes to great lengths to exclude mass shootings that are the result of burglaries and gang violence, but he includes terrorist attacks. This choice means that while the Texas biker gang gunfight last summer is excluded in his statistics, the November Paris attacks, which accounted for more than one-third of Europe’s mass shooting fatalities, are included.
However, when scholars study these mass shootings, they frequently exclude terrorist attacks from the analysis, for much the same reason Lott excludes burglaries and gang violence: the motivations are different.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
