• 994 mass shootings in 1,004 days: this is what America's gun crisis looks like
    477 replies, posted
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;49236284]Because, as has been stated, "victims" of shootings are anyone ranging from someone getting hit, to someone scraping their knee while trying to get away. So if someone in a dark alley fires their weapon in self-defense, the attacker is injured, the shooter is injured (probably scuffed up at least from the conflict), and if at least 2 people get scraped up fleeing from the sound of gunfire, it has officially become a "mass shooting" by definition.[/QUOTE] I just love it when people trivialize the injuries of gun violence victims. Responding to statistics by questioning whether the reported injuries are really [I]all that bad[/I] demonstrates contempt for the victims and distracts us from having a meaningful policy discussion. Can we all agree for a moment that if you haven't ever been the victim of a mass shooting, you can't possibly have any idea what the physical, let alone psychological, trauma feels like.
[QUOTE=mcharest;49253127]Can we all agree for a moment that if you haven't ever been the victim of a mass shooting, you can't possibly have any idea what the physical, let alone psychological, trauma feels like.[/QUOTE] No, because policy based only on the people who have suffered from the results of something is literally the definition of biased.
[QUOTE=mcharest;49253127]I just love it when people trivialize the injuries of gun violence victims. Responding to statistics by questioning whether the reported injuries are really [I]all that bad[/I] demonstrates contempt for the victims and distracts us from having a meaningful policy discussion. Can we all agree for a moment that if you haven't ever been the victim of a mass shooting, you can't possibly have any idea what the physical, let alone psychological, trauma feels like.[/QUOTE] I'm well aware of what the firearms I own are capable of doing and the types of injuries, physical and mental, they can inflict.
[QUOTE=mcharest;49253127]I just love it when people trivialize the injuries of gun violence victims. Responding to statistics by questioning whether the reported injuries are really [I]all that bad[/I] demonstrates contempt for the victims and distracts us from having a meaningful policy discussion. Can we all agree for a moment that if you haven't ever been the victim of a mass shooting, you can't possibly have any idea what the physical, let alone psychological, trauma feels like.[/QUOTE] Yes, but then shouldn't it be called a sitting indecent or something rather than mass shooting if only one person got shot in that scenario?
My highschool has had 4 school shooting threats and 2 bomb threats so far this year. I sure do love american public schools.
[QUOTE=Birdman101;49254265]Yes, but then shouldn't it be called a sitting indecent or something rather than mass shooting if only one person got shot in that scenario?[/QUOTE] I would absolutely agree with you on that. Isn't a mass shooting generally considered to be consisting of 3 or more victims? I did some research and it doesn't look like the FBI or any other federal agency has a clear definition on what exactly constitutes a mass shooting. I can see how that might result in some misleading statistics.
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;49251523]Actual mass shootings, the type that are covered on the news. Not the ones considered mass shootings by sources like the one in the OP, that include kids with BB guns and gang violence. I'm talking mass public shootings. The numbers come out to 508 to 424.[/QUOTE] Well it's rather easy to just dismiss other shootings just so your numbers match your statement, isn't it... And to be fair, it's only the one incident in November that adds a massive amount of casualties to Frances casualty rate and even then it says 352 injured, but I doubt all of them were shot.
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;49251523]Actual mass shootings, the type that are covered on the news. Not the ones considered mass shootings by sources like the one in the OP, that include kids with BB guns and gang violence. I'm talking mass public shootings. The numbers come out to 508 to 424.[/QUOTE] You're twisting the numbers to conform to your agenda. What you're doing is no different than to what the OP is doing.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;49257935]You're twisting the numbers to conform to your agenda. What you're doing is no different than to what the OP is doing.[/QUOTE] There's a difference between "twisting the numbers" and "untwisting the numbers"
[QUOTE=Apache249;49258379]There's a difference between "twisting the numbers" and "untwisting the numbers"[/QUOTE] No there's not. Are you saying there's a set definition for mass shooting?
[QUOTE=Flumbooze;49258467]No there's not. Are you saying there's a set definition for mass shooting?[/QUOTE] Well, there is a definition, but I along with many others (apparently) think it is too loose and allows people to say things like "994 mass shootings in 1,004 days: this is what America's gun crisis looks like".
[QUOTE=Megadave;49236918]I agree, but I think it should be only for automatic weapons.[/QUOTE] You seriously don't have mental evaluations for all guns? What the fuck m8
[QUOTE=Apache249;49258483]Well, there is a definition, but I along with many others (apparently) think it is too loose and allows people to say things like "994 mass shootings in 1,004 days: this is what America's gun crisis looks like".[/QUOTE] But there isn't one definition accepted by everyone. It's all up to interpretation.
Again, on the subject of actual mass shootings, this is what you need to read. MOST of the so called mass shootings were gang shootings, some were even worse. One "mass shooting" was two kids with a bb gun. Clearly since there lacks a clear definition, it's being made sensationalist. [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/how-many-mass-shootings-are-there-really.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0[/url]
I just literally dont understand the argument that guns dont play a role in this lol guns are designed for one thing, KILLING. They are KILLING tools and make it very very easy for people to KILL.
[QUOTE=billibobc;49258706]I just literally dont understand the argument that guns dont play a role in this lol guns are designed for one thing, KILLING. They are KILLING tools and make it very very easy for people to KILL.[/QUOTE] Guns play a role in it, they aren't the cause of it. Removing the guns removes one method by which people can kill, it doesn't remove the intent to commit a murder and it [I]does[/I] remove millions of dollars of property, priceless sentimental value and a means of defense from millions of law abiding citizens who have a right to keep them. People who commit crimes with firearms make up an infinitesimally small percentage of people who do not. It may also come as a surprise to you that areas in the US with the strictest gun laws also have the highest gun crime.
[QUOTE=Flumbooze;49258610]But there isn't one definition accepted by everyone. It's all up to interpretation.[/QUOTE] Right, but the source is sensationalizing up the wazoo, so I wouldn't say it's fair to call him "no different" than the OP/source. [editline]6th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=billibobc;49258706]I just literally dont understand the argument that guns dont play a role in this lol guns are designed for one thing, KILLING. They are KILLING tools and make it very very easy for people to KILL.[/QUOTE] I think I'm right in saying that literally no one has said that "guns don't play a role" in shootings.
if guns nobody had guns there literally couldn't be "mass shootings"
[QUOTE=billibobc;49259736]if guns nobody had guns there literally couldn't be "mass shootings"[/QUOTE] Idealism is pointless in the face of reality
The real question is does this count police shooting people? [editline]6th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=billibobc;49259736]if guns nobody had guns there literally couldn't be "mass shootings"[/QUOTE] If guns never existed there couldn't be mass shootings. But guns exist, and as long guns exist guns will continue to exist. Even if you get rid of all the guns by some magically fairy fart, the knowledge to make the guns still exists, and will continue to exist as long as room temperature is below paper combustion temperature. I'm all for common sense and what not, but what you are proposing is highly idealistic, even more so than stopping global warming or world hunger. although technically your point is correct.
[QUOTE=billibobc;49259736]if guns nobody had guns there literally couldn't be "mass shootings"[/QUOTE] I don't think you understand that that doesn't actually prevent people from going on rampages though. Approach the actual issue instead of wasting time trying to tango with symptoms and you don't have to justify to millions of innocent people why you're confiscating something they've had a right to own for 200 years and you'll actually save lives as opposed to endangering them further. Wipe the idea of 'mass shootings' out of your head and consider [I]all[/I] mass killings. Don't categorize them. How do you stop mass killings?
Idk how people argue for their guns so aggressively, you look at any other nation where there are less guns and there are less mass shootings it seems pretty obvious that the way to stop shootings is to get rid of guns. But as a Canadian in a province where quite a large amount of people hunt using you know hunting rifles and stuff im just not used to the gung ho rootin shootin cowboy culture of america. Imo nobody outside of the military/police should be allowed anything auto or semi auto.
[QUOTE=billibobc;49259911]Idk how people argue for their guns so aggressively, you look at any other nation where there are less guns and there are less mass shootings it seems pretty obvious that the way to stop shootings is to get rid of guns. But as a Canadian in a province where quite a large amount of people hunt using you know hunting rifles and stuff im just not used to the gung ho rootin shootin cowboy culture of america. Imo nobody outside of the military/police should be allowed anything auto or semi auto.[/QUOTE] Yet other countries still have mass killings and high crime rates, they're just carried out with things other than guns. How can you not see that the gun is not [U]causing[/U] this? It won't stop people from carrying out crime. Do you care about saving lives or just banning the scary boomsticks? Because they don't correlate. Like, at all.
[QUOTE=billibobc;49259911]nobody outside of the military/police should be allowed anything auto or semi auto.[/QUOTE] Why?
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;49259949]Why?[/QUOTE] He probably thinks that it's not hilariously easy to manufacture a basic firearm for criminals. He also probably thinks that there aren't multi-million dollar tunnels underneath our borders designed by fucking engineers. Then again, who knows what he's thinking. Canadians own a shit-tonne of firearms privately.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49258726]Guns play a role in it, they aren't the cause of it. Removing the guns removes one method by which people can kill, it doesn't remove the intent to commit a murder and it [I]does[/I] remove millions of dollars of property...[/QUOTE] Guns make killing more convenient. An angry guy at a bar is more likely to kill somebody if they have a gun. Knives require people to get close up so people are less likely to use them to kill.
[QUOTE=SpyWolf;49255180]My highschool has had 4 school shooting threats and 2 bomb threats so far this year. I sure do love american public schools.[/QUOTE] Wow, threats.
[QUOTE]New Hampshire does not require a license or permit to buy a handgun. One must be a resident, at least 21 years old, and not a “prohibited person.” Examples of disqualifiers include felony convictions, misdemeanor “crimes of domestic violence,” active domestic violence restraining orders, dishonorable military discharges, and involuntary mental health commitments. The licensed dealer will conduct a NICS (instant background) check by telephone to verify that you are not a “prohibited person.” The background check for handguns is conducted by the State of New Hampshire. New Hampshire has no waiting period for the purchase of firearms.[/QUOTE] [url=http://www.pgnh.org/nh-gun-laws.html]Source[/url] I've always found it interesting that despite the fact that here in NH, we have some [I]very[/I] laid back gun laws, yet have one of the lowest amount of gun murders in the country([url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state]Look at this list for refernce[/url]). We have a sizable population, relatively speaking, but it seems for the most part the culture around here doesn't seem to promote mass shootings too much. Granted, in our biggest cities, especially Manchester, you can still hear about shootings almost once a week. Even then, in that city, robbery is like 3-4x more likely than murder. Drugs are the biggest issue really. There virtually are no gangs, so even the dealers aren't really highly dangerous individuals really. I really can't imagine any sort of terrorist attack happening in NH, or VT, or even ME for that matter. It's a different story, obviously, for MA (because of Boston, Lawrence, etc.). I think in a general sense, improving the general standard of life for people may contribute to lowering the motivation for people to commit mass shootings. It can't just be a simple matter of allowing or not allowing something. That's probably already been established in this thread, but I thought I'd just further reiterate.
[QUOTE=Worldwaker;49259986]He probably thinks that it's not hilariously easy to manufacture a basic firearm for criminals. He also probably thinks that there aren't multi-million dollar tunnels underneath our borders designed by fucking engineers. Then again, who knows what he's thinking. Canadians own a shit-tonne of firearms privately.[/QUOTE] Yeah basic firearms, not automatic military assault rifles and yes we have private arms but no auto and no magazines with more than 10 rds and its a long process to get small arms. Nobody is committing mass shootings with dinky ass homemade pistols [QUOTE=BANNED USER;49259949]Why?[/QUOTE] Because its unnecessary? Why do civilians need them?
[QUOTE=billibobc;49260233]Yeah basic firearms, not automatic military assault rifles and yes we have private arms but no auto and no magazines with more than 10 rds and its a long process to get small arms. Nobody is committing mass shootings with dinky ass homemade pistols Because its unnecessary? Why do civilians need them?[/QUOTE] You are really determined to ignore any posts that you can't get away with just waving off. I wish I could get by blocking out everything I don't want to hear.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.