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.
Over half are suicides. We can stop this by banning all gun ownership and allow the inmates to rule the asylum. The inmates already are... they are known as Congress.
Which also brings up another fun fact, you are more likely to use a gun on yourself or have someone use your gun on you than you are at shooting someone in defense.
The discussion isn't about how rare mass murders are, it's about why the US is around 10 times the rate of other civilized countries. All these mass murders certainly have an impact on our society, that is the case in places like Sandy Hook, Columbine and South Carolina.
I don't think we can do anything about lightning strikes or shark attacks, that's nature but as usually we choose to do nothing when it comes to violence in our country.
One could argue that the 2000 killed in 9/11 were rare compared with 30,000 firearm deaths per year, but we most certainly took action when it comes to guns it's like ground hogs day.
Except that we don't have a rate 10 times that of other countries, as OP points out. And OP determines what the discussion is about, not you.
We could most certainly do something about deaths by lightning strike or shark attacks. We could launch a massive education campaign to not seek refuge under a tree on a golf course during a rainstorm. We could post guards to stop people from swimming in the ocean. But we won't, because it would frankly only save a tiny number of lives. But still, it would save many more lives than elimination of all mass shootings.
Moreover if we could reduce deaths from lightning or sharks, it would be a solid net gain. Eliminating mass shootings would probably just divert mass shooters to other means, such as bombings, fire, driving into crowds, etc.
Which also brings up another fun fact, you are more likely to use a gun on yourself or have someone use your gun on you than you are at shooting someone in defense.
Republicans are totally cool with that. They view it as a sort of social Darwinism.
Based on the link, if there had been less than ten mass shootings in the US over the past 15 years, I would completely agree with you, but 133, that is almost a monthly occurrence, that is a real problem.
So pick which state the next mass shooting will happen in within the next month or two.
133 is a completely bogus number created by misleading statistics and setting a low bar for "mass shooting", but it's not surprising anti gun nuts swallow it hook line and sinker since it fits with their agenda. Mother Jones (hardly a conservative site) counts 62 in 30 years and even to get that number they counted the shooter as "victim" if he was hurt and "spree killings"—cases in which the killings occurred in more than one location, so it's still an arbitrary definition to fit their agenda.
I pick the next state will be Illinois because I'm going to define more than one gang banger being shot in a weekend as a 'mass shooting'.
Except that we don't have a rate 10 times that of other countries, as OP points out. And OP determines what the discussion is about, not you.
We could most certainly do something about deaths by lightning strike or shark attacks. We could launch a massive education campaign to not seek refuge under a tree on a golf course during a rainstorm. We could post guards to stop people from swimming in the ocean. But we won't, because it would frankly only save a tiny number of lives. But still, it would save many more lives than elimination of all mass shootings.
Moreover if we could reduce deaths from lightning or sharks, it would be a solid net gain. Eliminating mass shootings would probably just divert mass shooters to other means, such as bombings, fire, driving into crowds, etc.
Other than a few aberrations countries like Canada, Australia, Germany, France, England are multiples below the US, even Mexico.
We already have done something relative to shark attacks and lightning, they have warning sirens on golf courses and detectors on little league fields. The point is that we are far above most civilized countries with respect to gun violence, the fact that they are small percentage is irrelevant.
Ah...another attempt by the right to say that Europe is worse than American...How Quaint. This goes right up there with the people that tried to say the U.K. is far more violent.
Which also brings up another fun fact, you are more likely to use a gun on yourself or have someone use your gun on you than you are at shooting someone in defense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaseMan
Republicans are totally cool with that. They view it as a sort of social Darwinism.
That's two errant posts for the price of one. It is not a 'fun fact' that anyone is more likely to be shot with his/her own gun than to shoot in self-defense. In the first place, embedded in this claim is the assumption that how you use your gun is a matter of probability, like the rolling of dice. It's like saying that if you buy a car you have a (say) 33% chance of getting a DUI, if 33% of drivers eventually get DUI's. No I don't, because I refuse to drink and drive at any time.
Lastly as for the response by the second poster, this is one of many examples of liberals believing that they have the power of telepathy, of reading peoples' minds. They don't.
That's two errant posts for the price of one. It is not a 'fun fact' that anyone is more likely to be shot with his/her own gun than to shoot in self-defense. In the first place, embedded in this claim is the assumption that how you use your gun is a matter of probability, like the rolling of dice. It's like saying that if you buy a car you have a (say) 33% chance of getting a DUI, if 33% of drivers eventually get DUI's. No I don't, because I refuse to drink and drive at any time.
Lastly as for the response by the second poster, this is one of many examples of liberals believing that they have the power of telepathy, of reading peoples' minds. They don't.
As the saying goes, not everyone plans to shoot themselves with their own gun, but we all get the blues from time to time.
133 is a completely bogus number created by misleading statistics and setting a low bar for "mass shooting", but it's not surprising anti gun nuts swallow it hook line and sinker since it fits with their agenda. Mother Jones (hardly a conservative site) counts 62 in 30 years and even to get that number they counted the shooter as "victim" if he was hurt and "spree killings"—cases in which the killings occurred in more than one location, so it's still an arbitrary definition to fit their agenda.
I pick the next state will be Illinois because I'm going to define more than one gang banger being shot in a weekend as a 'mass shooting'.
It is the number used in the article, if you want you can try to figure out where their number comes from, but I would bet the number that you will find will probably be pretty close to that. Mass shootings have become an American pastime this century.
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.
