[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I used the FBI definition of 4 or more. Do you honestly believe that a gang related "mass shooting" has the same causative factors as, lets say the Orlando shooter? I don't. One is fueled by drugs and poverty & the other, well we could start a whole new thread on that. If our aim is to reduce deaths, we ought to consider whats causing them in the first place - don't you think?

For the present purpose, I don't think it makes sense to disentangle the various causes, we need a baseline. Only after getting that base line, i. e. the total number of mass shootings, should we then break the number down if needed (e. g. x % are due to gang violence, x % due to terrorist attacks, etc.). Getting that breakdown is also much harder because you need to consistently categorize the different cases (e. g. you need to set a definition of terrorist attack, and depending on your definition, Dylann Roof is or is not a terrorist).

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I find this number to be extremely low all things considered - do you disagree?

I think you lost my initial question and got sidetracked with stuff I did not contend. And that is whether mass shootings are a good indicator of gun violence or not. I even included a concrete definition, namely, compared to other countries does an increased amount of mass shootings imply an increase in gun violence or not?

Since mass shootings are an indicator for gun violence, then I think it makes sense to pay attention to them as their are an indirect, but more publicly visible measure of total gun violence. For this purpose it does not matter that these are rare events. And it makes sense to use them as a reminder that gun violence in the US is a particular problem.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

For the present purpose, I don't think it makes sense to disentangle the various causes, we need a baseline. Only after getting that base line, i. e. the total number of mass shootings, should we then break the number down if needed (e. g. x % are due to gang violence, x % due to terrorist attacks, etc.). Getting that breakdown is also much harder because you need to consistently categorize the different cases (e. g. you need to set a definition of terrorist attack, and depending on your definition, Dylann Roof is or is not a terrorist).

I think you lost my initial question and got sidetracked with stuff I did not contend. And that is whether mass shootings are a good indicator of gun violence or not. I even included a concrete definition, namely, compared to other countries does an increased amount of mass shootings imply an increase in gun violence or not?

Since mass shootings are an indicator for gun violence, then I think it makes sense to pay attention to them as their are an indirect, but more publicly visible measure of total gun violence. For this purpose it does not matter that these are rare events. And it makes sense to use them as a reminder that gun violence in the US is a particular problem.

The way I'm reading your argument is that because they exist at all that indicates that gun violence is a problem in the US....meaning unless the number of mass shootings fell to 0 your interpretation of the data would not change. Is this correct?

What I'm saying at that they occur at such low relative frequency, if they are an indicator of gun violence as a whole, that indication is that the problem is not nearly as bad as the media portrays since the rate, relative to other measures of gun violence in the US and compared to abroad, basically amounts to the media profiting off of truly horrific yet rare incidents.


Perhaps I'm missing something here though, if we're paying attention to mass shootings, doesn't it make sense to pay attention to how often they are actually occurring? In other words, given that just 2.2% of gun-homicides are mass shootings, shouldn't we focus our efforts on the other 97.8%? i.e. inner city gang/drug violence.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Perhaps I'm missing something here though, if we're paying attention to mass shootings, doesn't it make sense to pay attention to how often they are actually occurring? In other words, given that just 2.2% of gun-homicides are mass shootings, shouldn't we focus our efforts on the other 97.8%? i.e. inner city gang/drug violence.

I'm sure that would be construed as racist or something. Much like how being against current immigration policy in Germany, despite the 40% climb in violent crime, somehow makes you a bigot.

[Snow-i]

I'm sorry, I just reread my last post and realize that middle part is a jumbled mess. Let me try again:

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

For the present purpose, I don't think it makes sense to disentangle the various causes, we need a baseline. Only after getting that base line, i. e. the total number of mass shootings,

We already have that - I already gave it to you. Do you not trust the source?

They constitute ~2.2% of homicides using firearms.

should we then break the number down if needed (e. g. x % are due to gang violence, x % due to terrorist attacks, etc.). Getting that breakdown is also much harder because you need to consistently categorize the different cases (e. g. you need to set a definition of terrorist attack, and depending on your definition, Dylann Roof is or is not a terrorist).

They already are categorized - have you taken a look at any of the sources I've provided? We're already working with those divisions. I've specified which numbers I've used and why - you're free to look at the datasets and draw a different conclusion.

I think you lost my initial question and got sidetracked with stuff I did not contend. And that is whether mass shootings are a good indicator of gun violence or not. I even included a concrete definition, namely, compared to other countries does an increased amount of mass shootings imply an increase in gun violence or not?

How is the frequency with which they occur not important to whether or not they're a good indicator of gun violence? Considering 97.8% of homicides are not mass shootings, I am arguing that mass shootings are not a good indicator of gun violence as a whole. You're free to compare that number with another country - I gave you the same dataset I used for that very purpose. Your turn to do some legwork and compare those numbers with other countries - it is your argument after all .

Since mass shootings are an indicator for gun violence,

You've not proved that - you've simply posed that we should look at more data then hinted that in the absence thereof you must be correct, leaving my well-supported argument unrequited. I apologize if I've not been clear on how my argument addresses yours, I hope this clears it up.

then I think it makes sense to pay attention to them as their are an indirect, but more publicly visible measure of total gun violence. For this purpose it does not matter that these are rare events. And it makes sense to use them as a reminder that gun violence in the US is a particular problem.

How does "indirect" & "publicly visible" support the argument that they're a good indicator of gun violence as a whole? I don't see how either of those two factors would have a basis in the empirical data. I'm not seeing the logic there.

[Snow-i]

Homicide rate surging for black Chicagoans, report finds - Chicago Tribune

Just saying, we've been looking at per 100,000 numbers and Chicago's is 18.8 per 100,000. Chicago alone literally has 67 times the firearm per capita of mass shootings nationwide, while contributing to the latter's number!

You are 67 times more likely to die from a firearm in Chicago than you are from a mass shooting in 2016, Orlando included. Chicago has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country.

Oreo, are you sure mass shootings are still a good indicator of firearm homicides as a whole?

Waragainstsleep, how do you reconcile that Chicago's tough anti gun laws result in one of the highest gun-homicide rates in the country? If you're going to say the guns come from surrounding areas that have looser gun laws, why are the surrounding areas per capita rates not equally high? Obviously there must be some other causative factor driving that number up so high. Right?

This quote from the article is painful to read, but

But the report held particularly troubling news for African-Americans. The rate for blacks in Chicago jumped from 36.1 homicides per 100,000 residents in 2005 to 46.5 a decade later. Other studies have shown steep drops in the city's African-American population in recent years, but crime figures remain stubbornly high in many largely black neighborhoods.

Black homicides in chicago are 166 times more likely to occur than the national average for mass shootings per capita. That number is depressing, and tells me we got a long way to go. When was the last time you heard news about this? Compare that to mass shooting coverage. This is why we're screaming that gun control laws aren't going to solve the problem, because the problem isn't the 2A.

[Waragainstsleep]

You asked earlier for data on domestic violence shootings. Its not figures but it seems like the SCOTUS thought it worth ruling on a very wide scope to ban abusers from owning guns. Won't get the first timers of course but a sensible move at any rate.

Supreme Court Upholds Wide Reach of U.S. Gun Ban for Domestic Violence - NBC News

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

You asked earlier for data on domestic violence shootings. Its not figures but it seems like the SCOTUS thought it worth ruling on a very wide scope to ban abusers from owning guns. Won't get the first timers of course but a sensible move at any rate.

Supreme Court Upholds Wide Reach of U.S. Gun Ban for Domestic Violence - NBC News

Your link is 404'ed, however I am aware of the ruling. The Supreme court essentially ruled on a definition used in the law & whether or not "reckless" criminal acts were in the perview of that law, or if it only applied to convictions based on "intent". Basically, the SCOTUS filled in the void on a poorly written law by saying "your rights are null & void the minute you have a misdemeanor conviction on your record".

Essentially, the goverment can remove your constitutional "rights" after a misdemeanor conviction. This means not only the 2A, but the 1A, 4A, 9A, 15A, etc do not apply to those with minor misdemeanors on their records. I wonder who would be impacted most by this? They aren't rights if the government can take them away with a traffic ticket conviction. I guess the ends justify the means though, right?

[subego]

I think it's notable dissenters were Thomas and... Sotomayor.

Not something which happens every day.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Your link is 404'ed, however I am aware of the ruling. The Supreme court essentially ruled on a definition used in the law & whether or not "reckless" criminal acts were in the perview of that law, or if it only applied to convictions based on "intent". Basically, the SCOTUS filled in the void on a poorly written law by saying "your rights are null & void the minute you have a misdemeanor conviction on your record".

Essentially, the goverment can remove your constitutional "rights" after a misdemeanor conviction. This means not only the 2A, but the 1A, 4A, 9A, 15A, etc do not apply to those with minor misdemeanors on their records. I wonder who would be impacted most by this? They aren't rights if the government can take them away with a traffic ticket conviction. I guess the ends justify the means though, right?

It did strike me how easily this sort of trick could be used to actually take away peoples guns. Yet I haven't heard much fear or outrage about it from the gun fans. I would at least have expected them to accuse Obama of being out to use something like it as his mechanism for taking their guns.

[Waragainstsleep]

Are there any rules about mental health/treatment and gun rights?

Wonder how the NRA would react to a law that required all psychiatrists to advise their patients to temporarily give up their guns while being treated. A bit like an anti-gun equivalent of what the GOP has been doing against abortions in certain states.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

It did strike me how easily this sort of trick could be used to actually take away peoples guns. Yet I haven't heard much fear or outrage about it from the gun fans. I would at least have expected them to accuse Obama of being out to use something like it as his mechanism for taking their guns.

There is plenty of discourse about it in gun circles. Just because the idiots are the loudest doesn't mean they're in charge, Waragainstsleep. That's true of any group of people, politically aligned or not.

It's not just guns, it's any right. There is now precedent that says the gov't can revoke constitutional rights on non-intent based misdemeanors. The potential for abuse is staggering, especially when many domestic convictions are based on the cops' judgement of a he-said/she-said situation. Not to mention that governments to legislate other rights away (4A anyone?) based on minor misdemeanor convictions that don't have an ounce of moral turpitude about them. It's a sad day for citizens rights, regardless of how you feel about the 2A in particular.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Are there any rules about mental health/treatment and gun rights?

Wonder how the NRA would react to a law that required all psychiatrists to advise their patients to temporarily give up their guns while being treated. A bit like an anti-gun equivalent of what the GOP has been doing against abortions in certain states.

Yeah, that's already a rule, since like 1968. If you've been committed you cannot buy a gun. That's a rule the NRA endorsed if I remember correctly.

Just recently 2 army vets won their cases on constitutional grounds, one after being involuntarily committed at age 16, then serving a number years in the Army, and being denied a gun as a retired veteran. I'll try to find the link.

Edit: Here's the NRA's statement on it
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2013...h-and-firearms

Here's the story I was talking about:
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/201...ndment-rights/

[Chongo]

Initially thought to be unrelated, the NJ and NYC bombings may be.
Officials probe bombings, stabbings in three U.S. cities in a 12-hour span | Fox News

[Chongo]

Another IED in NJ
Explosive device detonates near Elizabeth train station (VIDEO) | NJ.com

[Chongo]

Suspect in NYC bombing named
https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/seeking-i...ad-khan-rahami

[BadKosh]

OOOOPPS!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/more-800-...-politics.html

What could go wrong?

[Chongo]

His father reported him to the FBI, and they cleared him?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/21/ny...pect.html?_r=0

He also sued local cops.
NYC Suspect Sued Police For Anti-Muslim Discrimination | The Daily Caller

[Chongo]

Close the cooking show loophole!





Call the NRA and tell them no one needs a large capacity pressure cooker, let alone more than one like the Chelsea bomber owned!
Home | National Restaurant Association

[Chongo]

Shrapnel type (suicide?) bomb(s) after Aria Grande concert. At least 19 dead and 50 injured.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/de...turing-n763286

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Shrapnel type (suicide?) bomb(s) after Aria Grande concert. At least 19 dead and 50 injured.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/de...turing-n763286

It's too bad Britain doesn't have gun control measures in place that would have prevented this.

Snark aside, thoughts and prayers for the victims and their families.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

It's too bad Britain doesn't have gun control measures in place that would have prevented this.

But our laws did make it too difficult for him to march into the stadium with a couple of assault rifles and hundreds of rounds of ammo. How many dead would we have then, from firing at random into such a high density crowd?

Its like you guys are brain damaged about this subject. Think it through.

[BadKosh]

So don't they have security checks or metal detectors in the UK?
think it through.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Its like you guys are brain damaged about this subject. Think it through.

They aren't the ones suffering "brain damage", you haven't figured out that the weapons don't matter, it's the motivation and desire to kill that's the issue. If that motivation exists, a weapon for mass murder can easily be found. Don't get me wrong, I believe reintroducing guns back into the UK would be a bad idea, because IMO you aren't mature enough to handle that responsibility anymore. Given your country's propensity for simply taking things away from everyone when this type of shit happens, as if you've merely been naughty children, it wouldn't surprise me if your nanny state soon bans backpacks.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So don't they have security checks or metal detectors in the UK?
think it through.

They did check bags, but according to some that were interviewed on the BBC, many were not.

[Brien]

Anyone else think it's inevitable they roll out TSA style body scanners at stadiums, malls, theaters, themeparks etc?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

and it won't matter, because if there's a will, there's a way. It sure will inconvenience and annoy non-terrorists, though, pushing people into making more conservative political decisions, as they select perceived security over liberty.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So don't they have security checks or metal detectors in the UK?
think it through.

The attack was outside the venue as people were leaving. There are no "security checks or metal detectors" in that scenario.

OAW

[P]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

They aren't the ones suffering "brain damage", you haven't figured out that the weapons don't matter, it's the motivation and desire to kill that's the issue. If that motivation exists, a weapon for mass murder can easily be found. Don't get me wrong, I believe reintroducing guns back into the UK would be a bad idea, because IMO you aren't mature enough to handle that responsibility anymore. Given your country's propensity for simply taking things away from everyone when this type of shit happens, as if you've merely been naughty children, it wouldn't surprise me if your nanny state soon bans backpacks.

It matters because it limits opportunity, and therefore frequency. This particular crazy had the means to build a bomb - a lot of people don't. If assault rifles are commonly available in a community, that increases the opportunity - etc. This is quite obvious - if you deny this, then why not let everyone have a suitcase nuke?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

They aren't the ones suffering "brain damage", you haven't figured out that the weapons don't matter, it's the motivation and desire to kill that's the issue. If that motivation exists, a weapon for mass murder can easily be found.

Theres mass and theres more mass.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Don't get me wrong, I believe reintroducing guns back into the UK would be a bad idea, because IMO you aren't mature enough to handle that responsibility anymore. Given your country's propensity for simply taking things away from everyone when this type of shit happens, as if you've merely been naughty children, it wouldn't surprise me if your nanny state soon bans backpacks.

Some of our gun bans were definitely rather reactionary, but like every other country in the world except the USA, our lack of obsession about guns is exactly why we are more suited to be trusted with them than you lot. I'm pretty sure that if every country in the world adopted US gun laws, your death rate would still be highest.

[Waragainstsleep]

Its funny how having to have people go through your clothes, shoes, luggage and persona business and walk through metal detectors just to get into schools or government buildings is considered freedom nowadays.
Personally I like the freedom of knowing I could walk down the street without getting shot by some random angry moron.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

It's too bad Britain doesn't have gun control measures in place that would have prevented this.

Snark aside, thoughts and prayers for the victims and their families.

"I'm praying for you guys, right after I apply this sick burn to some libs on the internet."

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by P 

It matters because it limits opportunity, and therefore frequency.

Got to keep all the bad things from the kids, right? What do you have when any and all potentially harmful things is finally removed from society?

Nevermind, I guess you get someone like the following...

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Theres mass and theres more mass.

Some of our gun bans were definitely rather reactionary, but like every other country in the world except the USA, our lack of obsession about guns is exactly why we are more suited to be trusted with them than you lot. I'm pretty sure that if every country in the world adopted US gun laws, your death rate would still be highest.

Tell you what, pumpkin, if you remove our black gang stats, our homicide statistics would be as low as practically anyone else's. No, your people are not at all capable anymore. Sooner or late I think it'll at least be partially repealed, for muslims, once the caliphate is in control.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

"I'm praying for you guys, right after I apply this sick burn to some libs on the internet."

Don't pray anymore, Islam is wrecking them and they should know better by now.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Don't pray anymore, Islam is wrecking them and they should know better by now.

Brain damage.

[P]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Got to keep all the bad things from the kids, right? What do you have when any and all potentially harmful things is finally removed from society?

Eudiamonia, probably. Or Limbo. Not sure that they're any different.

Nobody suggests that we remove everything that might be dangerous. Case in point is big trucks, which were used several times recently to hurt and kill people. They have a significant use case outside of crazies trying to kill people with them, so we are not going to ban them. Fully automatic weapons are different - their use case outside trying to kill people is limited, and so we ban them.

Please note that if you think that the positive use case for automatic weapons, you can make a different judgement. I am totally fine with that. I will disagree, but you're not wrong per se. You can allow tanks or whatever if you think that the positives outweigh the negatives (I will make an exception for nukes, because at that point you might end lif eon planet Earth, and other nations have a right to be concerned about that). What does get my hackles up is when people try to argue that a high amount of weapons in a society has no negative effects. It clearly does, and every study ever made on the topic confirms it. It is up to you to decide if you want to pay that price, but don't pretend that there is no price.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Sooner or late I think it'll at least be partially repealed, for muslims, once the caliphate is in control.

Funny. The MOST unlikely part of this sentence is the bit where you claim to be thinking.

The most offensive bit is all of it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by P 

Fully automatic weapons are different - their use case outside trying to kill people is limited, and so we ban them.

Semi-automatic. At least in the states, the requirements to legally own a fully-automatic weapon are so onerous, they very rarely get used in crimes.

Though it should be noted converting semi to full isn't a particularly difficult process. Most semi-automatic designs are natively full-auto, but have a limiter in the way.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by subego 

the requirements to legally own a fully-automatic weapon are so onerous, they very rarely get used in crimes.

hmmm

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

hmmm

FWIW, my argument against restrictions isn't they are ineffective.

However, an analysis of the efficacy of restrictions on fully-automatic weapons needs to be made in the context of widely available semi-automatic weapons.

The joke is "full-auto doesn't make anyone more dead, it just gets you a federal weapons violation".

[P]

Originally Posted by subego 

Semi-automatic. At least in the states, the requirements to legally own a fully-automatic weapon are so onerous, they very rarely get used in crimes.

Though it should be noted converting semi to full isn't a particularly difficult process. Most semi-automatic designs are natively full-auto, but have a limiter in the way.

IMHO, semi-automatic weapons should be allowed but removable magazines should be banned. In countries that do this and combine it with small magazine sizes, it seems to work well. EU seems to be moving towards banning semi-automatics completely right now though.

[subego]

Semi-automatic weapons with a removable magazine is already pretty much all of them.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Brain damage.

Great self-prognosis, but you can seek help for it.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

Funny. The MOST unlikely part of this sentence is the bit where you claim to be thinking.

The most offensive bit is all of it.

Headline: Regressives Find Facts Offensive. Here's a project for you, find the countries where Islam has gained control over a native population, then outline which ones didn't persecute non-Muslims. Hint, there are none. Why is that? Because Islam is an ideology, political machine, and an identity, not just a religion. What's truly offensive is how people can see history but do nothing to avoid repeating it. Islam isn't inclusive, it doesn't respect your right to have a different religion, or none at all, and that's why it's incompatible with liberal Western societies.

[Doc HM]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Headline: Regressives Find Facts Offensive. Here's a project for you, find the countries where Islam has gained control over a native population, then outline which ones didn't persecute non-Muslims. Hint, there are none. Why is that? Because Islam is an ideology, political machine, and an identity, not just a religion. What's truly offensive is how people can see history but do nothing to avoid repeating it. Islam isn't inclusive, it doesn't respect your right to have a different religion, or none at all, and that's why it's incompatible with liberal Western societies.

Here's a project for YOU. Find a western democracy whee Islam has gained control, or is likely to gain control in order to carry out this persecution. Hint: There are none. Flagging up a demonstrably unlikely event as justification for your paranoia isn't a valid excuse to relax gun laws.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Great self-prognosis, but you can seek help for it.

Was "I know you are but what am I" really the sharpest arrow in your quiver?

[Paco500]

On a more serious note, I had to go to London today for meetings and it was jarring to see police with semi-auto (maybe full auto, didn't ask) rifles on the platforms.

Call me a snowflake, marxist, regressive, but it gave me a real appreciation for the norm- an unarmed police force.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Doc HM 

Here's a project for YOU. Find a western democracy whee Islam has gained control, or is likely to gain control in order to carry out this persecution. Hint: There are none. Flagging up a demonstrably unlikely event as justification for your paranoia isn't a valid excuse to relax gun laws.

It's already happening in yours, man. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...lications.html That was 5 years ago, and it's spread like wildfire since. Think about it, parts of the UK are under Sharia law. If that doesn't bother you, then you're already lost.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Was "I know you are but what am I" really the sharpest arrow in your quiver?

Considering the original barb was a misfire? Sure.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Call me a snowflake, marxist, regressive, but it gave me a real appreciation for the norm- an unarmed police force.

It should. Thank radical Islam, and by London's own mayor's admission, it's something you'll "just have to live with" from now on.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

On a more serious note, I had to go to London today for meetings and it was jarring to see police with semi-auto (maybe full auto, didn't ask) rifles on the platforms.

Call me a snowflake, marxist, regressive, but it gave me a real appreciation for the norm- an unarmed police force.

Even though it barely registers anymore that every cop is carrying a pistol, anything larger is rare enough for me it's still jarring.

Ironically, more often than not, I've had the experience in Europe. It's been awhile, but Rome was like, "whoa".

Not making a political point, just offering my (limited) observations.