Mass shooting at El Paso Walmart/and also Dayton OH

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, Gugny said:

 

I remember when "going postal," became a term, yes.

 

This is one list of shootings that I found after a quick google search.  https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

 

According to this data:

From 2000-2009, there were 20 mass shootings.

From 2010 - today, there have been 63.

 

I think that's a 300% increase from one decade to the next.

 

Anyone who pays attention knows that mass shootings have been on the rise.

 

 

 

But again, define "mass shooting."  In as much as the FBI defines it, it's four people killed in a single gun incident, including the shooter.  Stanford defines it as three or more killed or wounded, including the shooter, in an incident not related to any other crime (drugs, gangs, etc.)  The Gun Violence Archive defines it as four or more killed or wounded, excluding the shooter, without any differentiation.  Mother Jones uses four people killed, but differentiates from other crimes.  

 

The GVA is probably the best definition, for being purely objective and consistently implemented.  Mother Jones is likely the worst of the group, partially for being a subjective definition, but also largely because their research methodology is atrocious - basically, what they can find reported online (interestingly, Stanford's is just as bad - they specify searching for "online reports" going back to 1966) and from the looks of it cherry-picked to suit their subjective impressions.  The FBI's is not very good either, as they just reuse their definition of "mass murder," and don't even differentiate guns from other means (e.g. running people over with trucks.)

 

Plus, most of these lists only started less than ten years ago.  Before the late-80s or so, there was no centralized reporting for "small mass shootings" of three or four victims - those were local crimes.  Unless one of these groups has people physically reviewing local law enforcement records for crimes that fit their definition of "mass shooting," every list is going to have a recency bias (again, GVA is probably the most honest...but only goes back to about 2012 or so.)  Meaning: of course "mass shootings" look like they're increasing in frequency...because they get reported more frequently, and compiled in to lists more easily than 30 years ago.  

 

Which is not to say they're not more frequent.  It's just to say that you can't rationally say they are more frequent - it's a subjective impression you have, built on many factors, each of uncertain contribution (and yes, I just called you irrational.  Live with it.)  Which is, again, why I say: prove it.

 

And I know, you personally are not going to prove it.  But you're relying on people who aren't proving to form your opinion.

[ExiledInIllinois]

2 minutes ago, mead107 said:

Let’s get rid of all the sharks 

Mosquitoes.

9 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

Bacteria kills millions!

 

Ban fungi!

The mosquito has killed more people than all human wars since the dawn of time

[DC Tom]

11 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

Bacteria kills millions!

 

Ban fungi!

 

Buffalo716 kills everyone's patience.

 

Ban him.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, Cripple Creek said:

Oh, goodness. I have not asked anyone to surrender anything and I'm not sure anyone else has (until now).

 

"bUt aR-15nZ KiLlz PeEple"

 

[DC Tom]

Just now, ExiledInIllinois said:

Mosquitoes.

The mosquito has killed more people than all human wars since the dawn of time

 

But how many people in wars have mosquitoes killed?

 

Since the dawn of time, in all the wars fought disease has killed more than violence.  The Gulf War was the first war where disease wasn't a major casualty-causing concern.

[Cripple Creek]

Just now, Joe in Winslow said:

 

"bUt aR-15nZ KiLlz PeEple"

 

& there you go again

 

Have you gone back to reread the post that outrages you?  Has your comprehension improved?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, Cripple Creek said:

& there you go again

 

Have you gone back to reread the post that outrages you?  Has your comprehension improved?

 

Well, what I'm seeing is you trying to interpret what that poster said, and NO clarification by said poster. What he said is what he said. Until HE clarifies, you have to take it at face value, yeah?

 

[Happy]

5 minutes ago, Cripple Creek said:

 

As I said upthread, nothing in that post gives me the feeling that the one word you are both objecting to is what the OP actually meant.  

 

Feigned outrage has no borders or political affiliation. 

 

So "Individualism is destroying us." should not be taken at face value?  This country was founded on the idea individualism, with individuals forming a collective for national defense and sovereignty.

[Buffalo716]

4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Buffalo716 kills everyone's patience.

 

Ban him.

Now I'm really hurt

[DC Tom]

Just now, Buffalo716 said:

Now I'm really hurt

 

No you're not.  

[Cripple Creek]

7 minutes ago, Happy Gilmore said:

 

So "Individualism is destroying us." should not be taken at face value?  This country was founded on the idea individualism, with individuals forming a collective for national defense and sovereignty.

As I said, I believe it was a poor choice of words by the OP.  I choose to look at the whole and decide.  Of course I could be wrong, never know.

9 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Well, what I'm seeing is you trying to interpret what that poster said, and NO clarification by said poster. What he said is what he said. Until HE clarifies, you have to take it at face value, yeah?

 

No, we think, we interpret.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, Cripple Creek said:

 

No, we think, we interpret.

 

Which is exactly what I've done. Given the context of the thread (mass shootings), that kind of response leads me to believe that that guy is not a fan of individual constitutional rights.

 

 

[Gugny]

20 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

But again, define "mass shooting."  In as much as the FBI defines it, it's four people killed in a single gun incident, including the shooter.  Stanford defines it as three or more killed or wounded, including the shooter, in an incident not related to any other crime (drugs, gangs, etc.)  The Gun Violence Archive defines it as four or more killed or wounded, excluding the shooter, without any differentiation.  Mother Jones uses four people killed, but differentiates from other crimes.  

 

The GVA is probably the best definition, for being purely objective and consistently implemented.  Mother Jones is likely the worst of the group, partially for being a subjective definition, but also largely because their research methodology is atrocious - basically, what they can find reported online (interestingly, Stanford's is just as bad - they specify searching for "online reports" going back to 1966) and from the looks of it cherry-picked to suit their subjective impressions.  The FBI's is not very good either, as they just reuse their definition of "mass murder," and don't even differentiate guns from other means (e.g. running people over with trucks.)

 

Plus, most of these lists only started less than ten years ago.  Before the late-80s or so, there was no centralized reporting for "small mass shootings" of three or four victims - those were local crimes.  Unless one of these groups has people physically reviewing local law enforcement records for crimes that fit their definition of "mass shooting," every list is going to have a recency bias (again, GVA is probably the most honest...but only goes back to about 2012 or so.)  Meaning: of course "mass shootings" look like they're increasing in frequency...because they get reported more frequently, and compiled in to lists more easily than 30 years ago.  

 

Which is not to say they're not more frequent.  It's just to say that you can't rationally say they are more frequent - it's a subjective impression you have, built on many factors, each of uncertain contribution (and yes, I just called you irrational.  Live with it.)  Which is, again, why I say: prove it.

 

And I know, you personally are not going to prove it.  But you're relying on people who aren't proving to form your opinion.

 

I don't think I'm being irrational.  I started with the year 2000, because I think it's safe to say that the centralized reporting of 3-4 victim shootings was in full swing by then.  And, after a decade, I think you should know by now that you calling me irrational doesn't make me love you any less.

 

[Patrick Duffy]

37 minutes ago, Bills2ref said:

... this is pretty much what is banned now. What do you think people are out there killing with, grenade launchers? An AR-15 is a rifle. 

 

I assume he was talking about the automatic ones that will cut you in half from shooting a lot of bullets per second. Not your regular hunting rifle.

Edited August 4, 2019 by Patrick_Duffy

[/dev/null]

2 hours ago, Buffalo716 said:

Ban fungi!

 

I've been banning mushrooms for most of my life

[RaoulDuke79]

5 hours ago, Patrick_Duffy said:

 

I assume he was talking about the automatic ones that will cut you in half from shooting a lot of bullets per second. Not your regular hunting rifle.

Automatic weapons are already illegal to purchase.  For every AR-15 that kills someone there's 100 stolen handguns with serial numbers filed off that do the same thing. Guns aren't the problem,  people are the problem. Making more laws isn't going to prevent criminals from doing what criminals do.

Edited August 5, 2019 by RaoulDuke79

[PetermansRedemption]

6 hours ago, Patrick_Duffy said:

 

I assume he was talking about the automatic ones that will cut you in half from shooting a lot of bullets per second. Not your regular hunting rifle.

Good thing someone already thought to ban those. They were banned in 1994 under the Federal’s Assault Weapons Ban. I can’t explain why most mass shooters use AR’s, perhaps because the media talks them up so much? In most southern states a pistol is just as easy to obtain. A shooter can easily make a Glock 9MM with a few extended mags as deadly as an AR. It is far easier to control the muzzle rise and stay on target, because you won’t have any with the Glock.

 

That is where the problem lies. How do you fix the issue? Is it culture or is it the guns? Democrats say guns, republicans say culture. If it’s the guns, You would need to ban all rifles and pistols to pre-empt the switch from rifles to pistols for mass shooters. Then how do you ban a rifle? New York tried with the safe act, by defining “evil” features. You know what someone did, made NY Safe Act legal AR’s. Do you just ban all non bolt action rifles? But wait, a bolt action rifle in the hands of a skilled shooter can be deadly as well. See the Austin tower mass shooting. 

 

How do you collect all the existing rifles and pistols? Very few owners will own up to having them. Maybe half if you are lucky. The rest will suddenly have “lost” them. Do you search the house? What if they have moved off the weapons off site? Do you detain them until they talk? 

 

But then how do you even force the legislation through? Republicans will never vote for it. I’m sure some Democrats wouldn’t as well. Even if you force it through AND the President at the time signs it, can it withstand a conservative supreme courts interpretation of the 2nd amendment? 

 

You can easily see why this hot button issue will likely never be solved. You would need a country unified on the cause. You would need a political party completely in control of the senate, the house, and the presidency. Then you would need a rather liberal Supreme Court interpretation of the 2nd amendment. 

Edited August 5, 2019 by Bills2ref

[ExiledInIllinois]

Dayton shooter managed to knock off 9 dead & was still clipped dead himself by law enforcement 30 seconds after he first discharged his weapon.

 

Something is wrong here logically when thinking about that. 9 dead and LEO's responded in 30 seconds killing the active shooter.  What does that tell you about modern firearms?

 

How much faster can a responder get than 30 seconds! 30 seconds is an outlier response.

 

Yikes!

[Buffalo716]

6 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Dayton shooter managed to knock off 9 dead & was still clipped dead himself by law enforcement 30 seconds after he first discharged his weapon.

 

Something is wrong here logically when thinking about that. 9 dead and LEO's responded in 30 seconds killing the active shooter.  What does that tell you about modern firearms?

 

How much faster can a responder get than 30 seconds! 30 seconds is an outlier response.

 

Yikes!

It's a terribly sad tragedy

 

But 2 maniacs cannot punish all of the law abiding citizens which out number them 20 million to 1

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

....and yet ANOTHER.....SMH......

7 Wounded In Shooting Near Playground on Chicago's West Side

Published Aug 4, 2019 at 5:30 AM | Updated at 2:51 PM CDT on Aug 4, 2019

Seven people were wounded in a shooting Sunday as they gathered in Douglas Park on the West Side.

At about 1:20 a.m. Sunday, a group was standing in the park in the 2900 block of West Roosevelt Road when someone opened fire from a black Camaro, Chicago police said.

A 21-year-old man was hit in the groin and taken to Mount Sinai Hospital in critical condition, police said. A woman, 25, was struck in the arm, leg and taken to the same hospital where her condition was stabilized

Another woman, 22, was also hit and taken to Mount Sinai, police said. Her condition was stabilized.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Mass-Shooting-Near-Douglas-Park-Playground-Police-518001731.html