The Facts About Mass Shootings

Submitted by: 5cats 4 years ago in

Speaking louder than words about US mass murders (and the Newtown shooting). 1929 was the worst year on record.
There are 74 comments:
Male 5,413
Why do Americans always go "LOOK LOOK! LOOK AT THAT OVER THERE AND WHAT HAPPENED HERE!" Everytime you present them with something they need to do in their country, they dig old BS about other countries and say how it`s really not that bad.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
McGovern1981

We have guns in the wrong hands, true, but we also have something of a terrorist issue around high profile events.

Regular cops do not have guns and, even after two female police officers were ambushed and murdered responding to a routine call, most regular cops do not want that to change.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
OldOllie

I used two lines to point out that was a highly partisan source, which I think is undeniable, and the rest addressing the points.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@Musuko42

So you need police with guns because you have so few guns? Why would they need them then? Oh incase someone trys to do a mass shooting or attack royalty.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@McGovern1981

I *just* said we have specialised firearms response units. You just posted a photo of one.

And yes, I think it`s a good idea to beef up security around our national tourist cash cow. They`re high-profile targets, so the armed police are justified.

Last time I checked, I`m not a high-profile target. I don`t think I need an armed police presence to guard me.

And having reached age 28 having NEVER seen a gun in the flesh that wasn`t held by a police officer or a soldier, nor having EVER seen in person a knife used as a weapon or threat, I don`t think I`ve much to worry about so far.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
That`s a submachine gun BTW.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]Our police have specialised firearm response units. They are the only ones with guns. Our regular officers are absolutely NOT armed with firearms.[/quote]
Unless it`s for a royal wedding.....


So according to the royal family the royal family make you loads of money and you buy that?
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@LordJim

"But back in the day some local councils declared themselves `nuclear free zones`. Never understood how that worked"

It meant those councils would oppose any nuclear developments/storage/disposal in their counties.

There`s a CND monument near where I grew up commemorating the overturning of plans to set up a nuclear waste disposal site there.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@McGovern1981

"You still pay her though hmmm."

The royal family are a tourist attraction, and they make a net profit for our country via the income that tourism brings in.

So have a guess why we keep them around.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@5Cats

"Now UK cops carry freaking machineguns! That might have something to do with it too, eh?"

Dafuq? Where did you get that idea?

Our police have specialised firearm response units. They are the only ones with guns. Our regular officers are absolutely NOT armed with firearms.
0
Reply
Male 40,349
@HG: In fact = NO!
Many many Huff-po and uber-liberal sources have been quoted on IAB and they`re met with derision on the value of their FACTS!

I have often noticed "liberals" denigrating sources based ENTIRELY on their alleged political stand. Right-thinking persons question content! Leftists question anything which differs from their "pet peeve" of the moment...

It`s what I see with my own two eyes, if you disagree? You`d better have some solid FACTS to back you up...

But you don`t. Because you`re a lefty-liberal all you have is "feelings" and "emotions" and NO FACTS at all. Sad really...
0
Reply
Male 9,524
OldOllie

"That`s it, don`t consider the facts or logic of his arguments; just attack the person."

So if I posted something from HuffPost or DailyKos you wouldn`t immediately attack it as a biased source? Come on. Of course you would. In fact I`m pretty sure you have.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Scarcely an unbiased source, and the author is close to Limbaugh, which doesn`t incline me to trust him.[/quote]
That`s it, don`t consider the facts or logic of his arguments; just attack the person. That way you don`t have to think about things that might disrupt your closed-minded biased worldview.
0
Reply
Male 40,349
[quote]`nuclear free zones`[/quote]
@LordJim: I know! I remember those days of wacky, anti-nuclear protests (aka: the 80`s).

"If you drop a nuclear bomb on our city? We`ll fine you $100!"

Murder is already illegal, what more can one do to punish a criminal than the death penalty or life in prison?
Hey, I know!
If you 1st degree murder someone(s) with a gun? WE`LL DOUBLE THE PENALTY!
That`ll fix things!
0
Reply
Male 89
So by the logic of "Making guns illegal will reduce gun crime", we`ve removed drug addition in the United States by making drugs illegal... oh wait.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
Scarcely an unbiased source, and the author is close to Limbaugh, which doesn`t incline me to trust him.

Still, I agree that you are not going to eliminate widespread gun ownership in the US in our lifetimes. And I agree that mental health should be an issue with gun ownership.

But that`s gun control, right?

There`s no quick fix, but surely a start would be a national policy that to legally hold a gun you need to be demonstrably responsible, i.e. not a felon, not having unresolved mental health issues (and I know that having mental health issues does not automatically make you dangerous, but you probably shouldn`t have a gun), having taken a gun safety course and having secure storage would seem reasonable basics.

As for gun-free zones I wouldn`t know. Pretty much all of the UK is a gun-free zone; you can`t carry guns in public places. But back in the day some local councils declared themselves `nuclear free zones`. Never understood how that worked
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@Musuko42

You still pay her though hmmm. Perhaps there`s more to it than you see. Notice they get to have armed guards but the plebs are on their own.
0
Reply
Male 40,349
Plugging in the numbers from @AJ`s link: The 2008/9 gun death rate in the UK is 0.37, as opposed to 2011`s 0.27.
So it has dropped, now, which is good!

But it still went up before, which is what anti-gun advocates say would not happen.

Now UK cops carry freaking machineguns! That might have something to do with it too, eh?

It`s a complex, convoluted issue. "Take away everyone`s guns" isn`t the correct answer, or even remotely possible. And only taking guns away from lawful citizens does what?
0
Reply
Male 40,349
@AJ`s Link Still Says Gun Murders Increased in GB in the the 10 year span listed. It`s dropped since then? Well that`s good news indeed!

Taking away "all the guns" in the USA is still not possible, ever. So why push for it? Might as well demand that ALL Nuclear Weapons on Earth were destroyed: unless Superman does it for us? That ain`t going to happen either!
(See, he does that in movie 4 or 5, I forget which)

Laws which make it "harder to get guns" only affect those who are law-abiding! Even now criminals use illegaly obtained weapons, what stops that from continuing with the passing of 4 or 5 more laws?
0
Reply
Male 9,524
5Cats

"Four times, not 40... (it`s from Wiki) but the fact is: it went UP in the UK after the gun ban."

The firearm related death rate is:
10.2 in the US
4.7 in Canada
.25 in the UK

40 TIMES. Just like I said. Now that includes suicides. If you want to JUST look at homicides:

The firearm related homicide rate is:
3.7 in the US
.76 in Canada
.04 in the UK

Well that one is 77 TIMES HIGHER.

http://tinyurl.com/2wd4ta

What you posted is murder rate, not gun murder rate. I am certainly not implying getting rid of lots of guns with end murder. If I want to kill someone I`d do it with poison or stabbing anyway. However getting rid of guns gets rid of "innocent bystanders" and probably almost completely eliminates mass murders in schools and theaters.

0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Clearly GUNS are involved in that increase. So since the ban it has doubled, NOT dropped.[/quote]
You do know the uselessness of an absolute number, especially one spaced 10 years apart, right? Try looking instead of simply parroting things. Display that number as a RATE to take into account a growing population and then we`ll talk.
0
Reply
Male 40,349
[quote]1. The article you posted doesn`t link to any evidence...[/quote]
@HG: That article @AJ quoted said:
"The number of people injured or killed by guns... has increased from 864 in 1998/99 to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008/09, an increase of 104 per cent."

Clearly GUNS are involved in that increase. So since the ban it has doubled, NOT dropped.

Meanwhile, the USA has MORE guns legally in the hands of more people, and violent gun crime has DROPPED.

[quote]3. If there has been an increase[/quote]
YES! Gangs have more guns! More since the ban, NOT LESS! Because now guns are valuable `black market` items.

It`s apples vs apples! What more evidence do you want?

US murder rate = 4.2
Canada = 1.6
United Kingdom = 1.2

Four times, not 40... (it`s from Wiki) but the fact is: it went UP in the UK after the gun ban.
0
Reply
Male 9,524
McGovern1981

"They were illegal when he did that weren`t they so was murder. How did that work out again? Mabey you should look at people instead of objects sometime."

I`d say it worked out pretty well. You had to go back to 1995 to find a case. Meanwhile there are a few mass shootings every year.

You guys seem to think that we are dumb enough to think that if you make guns illegal there will never be another mass shooting. OF COURSE there will still be some. However, maybe it will be so rare that you have to go back 18 years to find one like you did with Oklahoma City. Wouldn`t that be nice?
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@McGovern1981

"ROFL!! Ya killers never had a way to kill before bad bad guns!!"

So why aren`t you allowed to own a nuclear bomb? Is it because, maybe, we all figure it`s in everyone`s best interest to minimise access to tools that make killing easier?

"The crown really has you plebs wrapped around their finger don`t they?"

Your head of state, the president, has power.
Our head of state, the queen, is a powerless figurehead.

Your country is far more autocratic than ours.
0
Reply
Male 7,774
The general public cannot even be trusted to do the most basic things without assistance so to put a gun in their hands is asking for trouble.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
Usually when an article says "The Facts..." it is one of the most fact-absent things you can read, and that goes both ways.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@Musuko42

ROFL!! Ya killers never had a way to kill before bad bad guns!! That`s where your logic is. The crown really has you plebs wrapped around their finger don`t they?
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]MCGovern1981

"timothy mcveigh claimed 168 lives"

Yes. It was a tragedy. However we are all on board with bombs being illegal. Get it? [/quote]

They were illegal when he did that weren`t they so was murder. How did that work out again? Mabey you should look at people instead of objects sometime.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"Making sure that only RESPONSIBLE law-abiding citizens can get hold of deadly weapons sounds like a good idea, don`t you think?"

Absolutely. Problem is, you never addressed my point.

Let`s say there are sweeping new changes on how you obtain guns legally. That may take 5% of guns out of the hands of people who are on the cusp of not really being (legally) able to have them.

Now. Say those people who are still legally able to have them, have them. Criminals will still steal them.

Also, the new regulations do not deter the black market. Not at all.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@auburnjunky

"Now. Say those people who are still legally able to have them, have them. Criminals will still steal them."

Wait wait wait, I thought you`re all about saying that owning a gun protects you from criminals.

So are you admitting that owning a gun DOESN`T protect you from criminals, because you`re afraid that people who own guns will just have them stolen from them?

Exactly what do you want these guns for then?!
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"Making sure that only RESPONSIBLE law-abiding citizens can get hold of deadly weapons sounds like a good idea, don`t you think?"

Absolutely. Problem is, you never addressed my point.

Let`s say there are sweeping new changes on how you obtain guns legally. That may take 5% of guns out of the hands of people who are on the cusp of not really being (legally) able to have them.

Now. Say those people who are still legally able to have them, have them. Criminals will still steal them.

Also, the new regulations do not deter the black market. Not at all.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@auburnjunky

"That`s the thing. Making it more difficult, is only making it more difficult for law abiding citizens."

And how is that a bad thing?

Considering that Adam was able to get hold of guns in the first place because his mother was freely able to obtain and own guns legally, you`d think that making gun access more difficult for law-abiding citizens would be a good thing!

I don`t want to speak ill of the dead, but if she had been more responsible with her legally-owned guns and devised some way to keep them locked and secured in a way that her son couldn`t get them, then this would never have happened.

Making sure that only RESPONSIBLE law-abiding citizens can get hold of deadly weapons sounds like a good idea, don`t you think?
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"Do you seriously not get the idea that just because we can`t make it impossible to get a gun doesn`t mean that we should give up on making it more difficult?"

That`s the thing. Making it more difficult, is only making it more difficult for law abiding citizens.

Criminals will still get guns the way they do now. They will steal them from people who have gone through the trouble to get them legally, or they will get them from the black market, which will remain unchanged.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@auburnjunky

"Agreed. How?"

No damn idea. And that`s my point. If we knew how to do that, we`d have done it by now.

We DO know how to keep weapons out of our hands. Just don`t make the damn things and destroy them when we find them, and lock them up tight when we must have them.

That`s the point I was trying to make: we can`t control humans very well, but we can damn well control objects.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@auburnjunky

"The guns he used were stolen, so if guns were banned, he would have found a lawless way to obtain them."

He stole the guns from his *mother*, whom he lived with.

If guns were illegal, his law-abiding mother would not have them in the house where he could steal them.

Nor would his neighbours. Or his neighbours neighbours. Nor a local gun shop. He would have to work pretty hard to find someone to buy/steal one from.

An amount of effort and criminal knowhow that I suspect would be beyond your average small town suburbia kid with mental health issues.

Do you seriously not get the idea that just because we can`t make it impossible to get a gun doesn`t mean that we should give up on making it more difficult?
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"Find a way to change the human psyche so that we don`t become killers."

Agreed. How?
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Hey Musuko:

The guns he used were stolen, so if guns were banned, he would have found a lawless way to obtain them.

Therefore, this wouldn`t have been avoided.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@McGovern1981

We`re not blaming inanimate objects. We`re blaming the people who pick up and use those objects. But if the objects weren`t there, the killings wouldn`t happen.

It`s an equation. Weapon + killer = killing.

Take away either part of that equation, and you don`t have a killing. Seeing as anyone can become a killer at any time, and we can`t get rid of people, all we`re left with to modify are the weapons.

So your choices are:
Status quo.
Find a way to change the human psyche so that we don`t become killers.
Get rid of weapons so that when people do become killers they can`t do much harm.

It`s not a difficult concept.
0
Reply
Male 219
Huh, I found several articles that spoke directly against your `facts` Holy...maybe before you start calling out others for lack of backing on their facts, you ought to get some backing for your own.
0
Reply
Male 9,524
AuburnJunky

"Ye ole "Your facts don`t count" argument?"

Not at all. I simply stated that: 1. I didn`t see any validation or source for the "facts" in the article. 2. I found contradicting facts that did have sources. 3. Even if your facts are accurate, they don`t necessarily equate to what you are trying to propose.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Really?

Ye ole "Your facts don`t count" argument?

I gotta get some sleep.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Facts? Since when have liberals given a loose dry f*** about facts?
0
Reply
Male 9,524
AJ

"Then speak on what has happened in Britain. Explain a 90% increase in gun crime since the handgun ban?"

1. The article you posted doesn`t link to any evidence and the only source I can see in it is the opposing party. Kind of like posting gun stats from the republican party or democratic party.

2. The info I found says: In 2012 the Home Office reported that, "in 2010/11, firearms were involved in 11,227 recorded offences in England and Wales, the seventh consecutive annual fall".

3. If there has been an increase, who knows what it is from. Could be the increase in gang activity in england. Could be a drug wave similar to what happened in America because of crack in the 90s.

I`ll tell you this, in the country where the guns are outlawed you are 40 times less likely to be killed by a gun than in the country where the guns are legal. Speak to that.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Then speak on what has happened in Britain. Explain a 90% increase in gun crime since the handgun ban?
0
Reply
Male 9,524
AuburnJunky

Your own article said that gun violence went down at the same rate that overall violence has gone down but was still the same percentage in overall violence. Overall violence has been steadily going down since the mid 90s.

That doesn`t strike me as anything with talking about.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Riiiight. Let me rephrase....

Since the Brady Bill which banned Assault Weapons, but it really didn`t because Assault Weapons were already hard as hell to get legally. It really banned long guns and hand guns with high capacity magazines, which for some reason are confused for Assault Weapons even though they aren`t. his is not an assault weapon, but I guarantee it shoots faster and more sustained that anything the Aurora or Newtown shooters did with their fancy 30 round clips.
0
Reply
Male 9,524
AuburnJunky

"Also, I did not say assault weapons. I said guns."

You said:

"since the Brady Bill assault weapons ban ended?"
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Also, I did not say assault weapons. I said guns.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"as assault weapons are infrequently used in the majority of gun crimes."

Because Assault Weapons are illegal in the USA without very expensive permits and releases.
0
Reply
Male 9,524
AuburnJunky

"America`s gun crime rate since the Brady Bill assault weapons ban ended? Down 42%."

Prove it. Post a link. I can`t find anything that even REMOTELY supports this. Most studies I found show negligible change in gun crime one way or the other as assault weapons are infrequently used in the majority of gun crimes.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Read what I said again HolyGod.

I was comparing America to itself, and Britain to itself.

Linky linky. Britain`s gun crime rate rises.

0
Reply
Male 9,524
AuburnJunky

"Gun laws don`t lower crime rates. They raise them."

Come on man. The data just DOES NOT back you up.

2009 firearm-related death-rate per 100,000 population:
USA: 10.2
United Kingdom: .25

I`m no mathematician, but that is almost 41 times as high.

http://tinyurl.com/2wd4ta
0
Reply
Male 2,675
"The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are about what they are for being struck by lightning."

Yeah, and odds-be-damned, I`m smart enough to protect my kids by keeping them out of lightning storms too.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
America`s gun crime rate since the Brady Bill assault weapons ban ended? Down 42%.

Britain`s gun crime rate since they banned guns in 1996? Up 90%.

Gun laws don`t lower crime rates. They raise them.
0
Reply
Female 6,381
Some interesting points. Perhaps now that so many Americans own guns and even go about their daily business armed, gun control is like trying to legislate floods not to enter houses.
0
Reply
Male 40,349
@FP: "Chicago Style" it`s been that way since prohibition, eh?

@DromEd: The pro-gunners point out that mass killings are possible even if you take the guns away.
Because no one died? Does that make it "less tragic"? That`s the Media for you, if the body-count is too low? It ain`t news.
Arson claims a lot of lives too, but no one`s calling for an end to matches... & Bic Lighters... two sticks...
0
Reply
Male 2,672
[quote]@DromEd: The technical definition is four or more, though I think many of the incidents on HolyGod`s list qualify for the simple fact that many of the attacks are indiscriminate and involve injuries in addition to the fatalities.[/quote]

Well the 22 stabbed in china recently didn`t seem to register to the anti-gun lot in this crowd because nobody died. Which way do you want it? Can`t have it both ways.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
Well, one thing we can agree on is that Rahm Emmanuel is a sleazebag. I`ve never liked the way he does politics.
0
Reply
Male 40,349
@FP: I`m not "blaming the crimes on gun control" I`m pointing out that those with the MOST "gun control" seem to have the WORST problems with gun crimes!
Anti-gunners say that more guns (in lawful citizen`s hands) = more gun crime. BUT the opposite is reality.

And Chicago`s sneaky Mayor lost in the Supreme Court, but still passed "laws" restricting gun ownership. Y`all Chicago Taxpayers? Y`all are paying for his nonsense!
AND getting caught in the crossfire...
0
Reply
Male 3,445
It`s quite a stretch to blame Chicago`s murders on gun control laws. What good can gun control laws do within a city`s jurisdiction if you can easily get a gun elsewhere?

Chicago`s crime rate has been declining for a long time, as you can see fromthis link.
0
Reply
Male 40,349
The article says that the "Aurora Shooter" (Batman movie) had 7 theaters in his area, only one which was a "gun free zone". Guess which theater he chose to shoot people?

Adding useless laws is not only a waste of time & money, it`s downright harmful! It makes criminals out of otherwise innocent people, and does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop a determined murderer.

And I repeat:
The very same people who oppose the "death penalty" are the ones calling for "more anti-gun laws".
Either laws ARE a deterrent to crime or they are NOT. Which is it? You cannot butter both sides of your bread, liberals!
0
Reply
Male 40,349
@curiousboy: It often takes a few minutes for a link to start working, patience!

@HolyGod: The article CLEARLY says "the first decade of the 2000`s = 2000 - 2009 OK?
Say what you like about 2013, that`s NOT what the article says, ffs...

Reading skillz, you lack them.
Also: proofreading (2013, lolz!)
Here`s a smilie to help you feel better: ;-)

Your link is... VASTLY incomplete! There have been 100`s of shootings in Chicago ALONE that aren`t mentioned! Yes, Chicago with it`s "tough gun laws" has the WORST shootings in the USA.

Also: some don`t qualify as "mass murder", just "spree killings" or whatever. Mass shootings? Yes they do qualify, but there`s WAY more than what`s listed.

Thanks for trying though.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
@DromEd: The technical definition is four or more, though I think many of the incidents on HolyGod`s list qualify for the simple fact that many of the attacks are indiscriminate and involve injuries in addition to the fatalities.
0
Reply
Male 2,672
I`m not sure what number constitutes a mass murder but I am sure it`s more than 3 or 4.
0
Reply
Male 9,524
From the article: "Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century."

Well according an article in Business Insider there were 18 mass murders in 2013 alone. So?
http://tinyurl.com/co6gvuc
0
Reply
Male 39,603

That`s what I been sayin all along.
0
Reply
Male 9,524
MCGovern1981

"timothy mcveigh claimed 168 lives"

Yes. It was a tragedy. However we are all on board with bombs being illegal. Get it?
0
Reply
Male 14,331
timothy mcveigh claimed 168 lives, including 19 children without a gun. Keep blaming inanimate objects though makes a good case for the crusade against people who choose to bear arms.
0
Reply
Male 723
Works for me and I agree with the author.

8-) LJ
0
Reply
Male 291
works for me
0
Reply
Male 96
Dead link..
0
Reply
Male 96
I`am clicking but nothing`s happening.
0
Reply
Male 40,349
Link: The Facts About Mass Shootings [Rate Link] - Speaking louder than words about US mass murders (and the Newtown shooting). 1929 was the worst year on record.
0
Reply