08 Dec 15
Originally posted by wolfgang59One, "mass" is used without definition, and certainly doesn't coincide with what most people would consider the use of the term, i.e., a considerable assemblage, number, or quantity.
Just come across this website
http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015
Chilling statistics - I didn't realise the problem was so bad!!
And most of the shooters are still unknown!
It looks as though the prerequisite is a combination of four (or more) people either killed or wounded.
With a majority of the shootings resulting in one or no deaths coupled with the fact that a good portion of the larger numbered deaths were a result of family disputes, gang retaliation and/or police action, the 353 is a lot less impacting.
Two, the large numbered death tolls
Roseburg, OR, San Bernardino, CA, for example
are events which the reporting of are suspicious at best, and seriously derail the intention behind assembling the list.08 Dec 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBe all that as it may, chilling statistics? Yes or no?
One, "mass" is used without definition, and certainly doesn't coincide with what most people would consider the use of the term, i.e., a considerable assemblage, number, or quantity.
It looks as though the prerequisite is a combination of four (or more) people either killed or wounded.
With a majority of the shootings resulting in one or no deaths coup ...[text shortened]... orting of are suspicious at best, and seriously derail the intention behind assembling the list.
08 Dec 15
Originally posted by FMFKinda hard to say, really.
Be all that as it may, chilling statistics? Yes or no?
Let's say (on average) it is two deaths per event--- way too high, but let's put it at that number anyway.
So we have 766 shooting deaths with some combination of four or more people either killed or wounded in the US for 2015 thus far.
The total number of homicide shooting deaths just two years ago was a little more than 11,000, or 3.5 per 100,000 people.
Or, as a percentage: 0.0035% which doesn't look overly alarming.
You'd have to nearly double that number to get the total amount of suicides via guns during that same time period.
And when you add up all the gun-related deaths for that year which do not include police or other legal intervention, the total number of those who died from guns represents 1.3% of all deaths.
Compare that with the number of automobile deaths from last year: 33,719 (significantly down from the 1971 high of 54,589) and it doesn't seem as pervasive as the double-spaced listing suggests.
That being said, over 60% of all gun-related deaths each year are purposely self-inflicted and mass shootings are a small fraction of the total number
Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence.
with a steadily declining rate.
Would it be more preferred to have zero deaths as a result of guns?
Clearly; just as it would be better to have no deaths as a result of automobile accidents.
Just as clearly: automobile deaths have gone down with an increased focus on the safety features within their construction.
We cannot make guns safer, as it is their design to injure or kill.
We can make their threat less likely simply by having every person of legal age carrying one.
Some jackass armed to the teeth will likely get a few unsuspecting people in their fury, but the damage they inflict would be seriously mitigated if every person around him/her pulled out Misters Smith and Wesson and ended the lesson...
08 Dec 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWe can make their threat less likely simply by having every person of legal age carrying one. Some jackass armed to the teeth will likely get a few unsuspecting people in their fury, but the damage they inflict would be seriously mitigated if every person around him/her pulled out Misters Smith and Wesson and ended the lesson...
The number of gun deaths would fall ~ in your estimation ~ if this were to be the case?
08 Dec 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI think any of those almost daily occurences would make front
One, "mass" is used without definition, and certainly doesn't coincide with what most people would consider the use of the term, i.e., a considerable assemblage, number, or quantity.
It looks as though the prerequisite is a combination of four (or more) people either killed or wounded.
With a majority of the shootings resulting in one or no deaths coup ...[text shortened]... orting of are suspicious at best, and seriously derail the intention behind assembling the list.
page news in most first world countries around the world.
I'm just saying that I, personally, was surprised by the figures.
Even if you are not surprised and want to nitpick
over a word like "mass" it is still shocking.
08 Dec 15
Originally posted by FMFClearly the number of gun related deaths would go up exponentially since the majority of gun deaths are accidental in the family, young 6 yo bobby finds daddy's loaded 357 and goes bang bang to his 3 yo sister and so forth.....
[b]We can make their threat less likely simply by having every person of legal age carrying one. Some jackass armed to the teeth will likely get a few unsuspecting people in their fury, but the damage they inflict would be seriously mitigated if every person around him/her pulled out Misters Smith and Wesson and ended the lesson...
The number of gun deaths would fall ~ in your estimation ~ if this were to be the case?[/b]
08 Dec 15
Originally posted by FMFI definitely think the person intent on wide-spread damage would think more closely, were they to believe the intent will likely fall short by virtue of a heavily-armed populace.
[b]We can make their threat less likely simply by having every person of legal age carrying one. Some jackass armed to the teeth will likely get a few unsuspecting people in their fury, but the damage they inflict would be seriously mitigated if every person around him/her pulled out Misters Smith and Wesson and ended the lesson...
The number of gun deaths would fall ~ in your estimation ~ if this were to be the case?[/b]
08 Dec 15
Originally posted by SeitseThe point wasn't to undermine the loss of life as it was the lack of clarity regarding what constitutes a "mass shooting."
Oh then there is no problem at all.
Move along, people! Move along! Just one human life lost, nothing
to be shocked about! Thanks for your visit! Move along, please!
Politically savvy gun control advocates have used events and the media to great affect by inserting fear and emotional reactions into the conversation, and essentially altered the data in order to bolster their case.
I don't know of a single person who would describe three family members killed by the father who turns the gun on himself a "mass shooting."
Any one I've ever conversed with on the topic considers "mass shootings" incidents wherein a person(s) opens fire on a large group of people, resulting in multiple deaths and injury.
The scope of this list is more narrowly defined than most people would accept, in my opinion.
That being said, are we willing to allow 30% of the US homicides to occur since they did not involve a firearm?
08 Dec 15
Originally posted by sonhouseNot sure where you get your data to support that generalization or idea.
Clearly the number of gun related deaths would go up exponentially since the majority of gun deaths are accidental in the family, young 6 yo bobby finds daddy's loaded 357 and goes bang bang to his 3 yo sister and so forth.....
08 Dec 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt is irrelevant what constitutes a mass shooting and a mini shooting.
The point wasn't to undermine the loss of life as it was the lack of clarity regarding what constitutes a "mass shooting."
Politically savvy gun control advocates have used events and the media to great affect by inserting fear and emotional reactions into the conversation, and essentially altered the data in order to bolster their case.
The fact remains: from the 10 or 15 most developed countries in the
world, and the 5 which actually boast about being advanced, the US
is the only one which resembles the dark ages.
Oh yes, I forgot, the politically savvy gun control advocates, those evil,
manipulating dastards. Luckily, the other side of the spectrum does not
use fear mongering and manipulation to bolster their case *snort*
08 Dec 15
Originally posted by wolfgang59The US murder rate of 3.8 dwarfs more than a few other countries, some as low as 0.2 and quite a few in the 0.x range.
I think any of those almost daily occurences would make front
page news in most first world countries around the world.
I'm just saying that I, personally, was surprised by the figures.
Even if you are not surprised and want to nitpick
over a word like "mass" it is still shocking.
The 2013 murder total of 12,253 also dwarfs quite a few other countries, some with one or none for the years reported.
That being said, there are twelve countries which exceed by either a little or a significant amount (Brazil, for instance, at four times the murder rate of the US, despite being nearly 40% lower in population), with only two of those twelve coming from countries with a larger population.
Thirteenth in homicides while third in population.
However, fifteenth in homicide from firearm (3.55 per 100,000 people), while all those with greater rates are smaller in population, to a high of 64.8 per 100,000 people.
And yes, I will quibble about the term "mass shooting" since it has become a loaded term meant to instill fear while a closer look at the data from this list reveals the term is applied with a complete lack of discrimination or accuracy... but plenty of intent!
08 Dec 15
Originally posted by SeitseI think any side with an agenda will necessarily become politically savvy, and will necessarily resort to fear at some point or another to change minds if they wish to have success.
It is irrelevant what constitutes a mass shooting and a mini shooting.
The fact remains: from the 10 or 15 most developed countries in the
world, and the 5 which actually boast about being advanced, the US
is the only one which resembles the dark ages.
Oh yes, I forgot, the politically savvy gun control advocates, those evil,
manipulating dastards. Luc ...[text shortened]... side of the spectrum does not
use fear mongering and manipulation to bolster their case *snort*
That being said, gun rights vs. gun control is decidedly in the favor of the former as it relates to telling the truth.
Gun control advocates have been on a brainwashing campaign (words from their own camp, not mine or their other adversaries) over the last two decades, complete with propaganda and staged events passed off as tragedies.
Between the two of them, I side with those whose positions allows people to protect themselves from tyranny.