(08-27-2015 10:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:27 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 06:21 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  How and who defines 'paranoid'?

If you can't go to the grocery store without packing heat or you feel the need to 'open bully', I mean 'open carry', then you're probably paranoid unless you got a damn good reason IMHO.

In my perfect world, no one would have to go door to door collecting weapons because it would be a felony to leave your house with one. Keep all the guns you want inside your home. But youre liable if any of those weapons leave your house.

How is going to the store with a gun paranoid? Are you scared of the gun or the people?
I would say YOU are the one being paranoid if you see a person with a gun. You just assume you are going to be shot and they are a bully

I'm not alone... Open Bully = Open Carry. The only reason to carry a weapon where people can see it ... is to implicitly threaten to kill someone if they backtalk you or disappoint you in any way.

I'm not alone either Open carry is certainly a deterrent to anyone who would do you harm. Criminals don't prey on those who can fight back. They prey on the weak. To assume someone carrying a fire arm is doing it soley to bully someone or kill someone who back talks or looks at you sideways is the same type of paranoia and grounded in less fact than you accuse gun owners of. I don't fear guns. When i see others at restaurants or elsewhere carrying a I actually feel more secure because I know that anyone with ill intent won't get very far or will pass on by and look for easier targets. That's not living in fear or being paranoid . Thinking that anyone exercising their open or concealed carry rights are a mass shooter just waiting to happen is living in fear and paranoid. And I'm not alone in thinking that

(08-27-2015 09:21 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  How does a Constitutional Right equate to paranoia in your world ?

I have a constitutional right to go out and spread hate speech too. Doesn't mean I'm gonna do it.

(08-27-2015 10:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:27 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 06:21 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  How and who defines 'paranoid'?

If you can't go to the grocery store without packing heat or you feel the need to 'open bully', I mean 'open carry', then you're probably paranoid unless you got a damn good reason IMHO.

In my perfect world, no one would have to go door to door collecting weapons because it would be a felony to leave your house with one. Keep all the guns you want inside your home. But youre liable if any of those weapons leave your house.

How is going to the store with a gun paranoid? Are you scared of the gun or the people?
I would say YOU are the one being paranoid if you see a person with a gun. You just assume you are going to be shot and they are a bully

I'm not alone... Open Bully = Open Carry. The only reason to carry a weapon where people can see it ... is to implicitly threaten to kill someone if they backtalk you or disappoint you in any way.

What an asinine statement.

(08-27-2015 05:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 05:12 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 04:58 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 04:34 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 03:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Shut down the open air gun market (oops I mean gun show) for starters. Make all purchasers and sellers of firearms conduct those sales under the authority of the police and retain records of who has the guns and where they are location. Hold gun owners strictly liable (civilly and criminally) for acts committed with their firearms if they are neglegent or careless (not securing their weapon).

You keep supposing that those who wish to disarm the law-abiding have some benign or higher purpose.

They don’t.

They want to disarm the populace to make them easier to subdue.

The authorities were able to determine he bought the gun legally and that he did not have any history of mental illness. How would the proposed law have stopped this?

I don't know as I am not proposing nor supporting what Tom wrote. Only that in his proposal there is nefarious intent to ensure a gun-owning populace is properly tracked, checked, and managed.

Tom, your thoughts?

There's nothing nefarious in ensuring that paranoid gun owners be properly tracked, checked, and managed. Its common sense.

Yes, lets let the government track and 'manage' those exercising their Constitutional right that acts as a check on government. What could go wrong?

(08-27-2015 10:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:27 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 06:21 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  How and who defines 'paranoid'?

If you can't go to the grocery store without packing heat or you feel the need to 'open bully', I mean 'open carry', then you're probably paranoid unless you got a damn good reason IMHO.

In my perfect world, no one would have to go door to door collecting weapons because it would be a felony to leave your house with one. Keep all the guns you want inside your home. But youre liable if any of those weapons leave your house.

How is going to the store with a gun paranoid? Are you scared of the gun or the people?
I would say YOU are the one being paranoid if you see a person with a gun. You just assume you are going to be shot and they are a bully

I'm not alone... Open Bully = Open Carry. The only reason to carry a weapon where people can see it ... is to implicitly threaten to kill someone if they backtalk you or disappoint you in any way.

You're projecting. Your weapon is not a gun but you do seem to believe that nobody should ever backtalk or disappoint you. Shutting down a business because they won't make you a damn cake is pretty dang close to robbing them at gun point.

(08-27-2015 10:57 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 10:43 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Horrific incident. Unfortunately it is on the news everywhere, as is common nowadays with this type of thing. Part of me wishes I could just block it all out, but it is everywhere I turn. Sickening.

1 mass shooting per day now in the USA.

How many are with legally obtained guns

Quote:As guns proliferate...mass shootings proliferate

Except Guns are not proliferating



They are just about where they have been for 30 years.

(08-28-2015 08:04 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 10:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:27 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 06:21 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  How and who defines 'paranoid'?

If you can't go to the grocery store without packing heat or you feel the need to 'open bully', I mean 'open carry', then you're probably paranoid unless you got a damn good reason IMHO.

In my perfect world, no one would have to go door to door collecting weapons because it would be a felony to leave your house with one. Keep all the guns you want inside your home. But youre liable if any of those weapons leave your house.

How is going to the store with a gun paranoid? Are you scared of the gun or the people?
I would say YOU are the one being paranoid if you see a person with a gun. You just assume you are going to be shot and they are a bully

I'm not alone... Open Bully = Open Carry. The only reason to carry a weapon where people can see it ... is to implicitly threaten to kill someone if they backtalk you or disappoint you in any way.

You're projecting. Your weapon is not a gun but you do seem to believe that nobody should ever backtalk or disappoint you. Shutting down a business because they won't make you a damn cake is pretty dang close to robbing them at gun point.

I think you're being dense here. Tom might not be wording himself the best way possible, but open carry itself is something that every rational gunowner I know, including myself, looks down on. There is no reason to walk into a mall with an AR clone hung from your shoulder unless you want to cause a scene. There is no reason to walk down a residential neighborhood with a rifle slung over your shoulder unless you want an understandably nervous resident to call the police so you can waste their time citing the open carry laws and stating over and over that what you're doing is legal, while they just try to explain that they were called because people were worried. Guns are a tool, but they're a tool whose use is very specific and intentionally dangerous, and people who open carry are imbeciles who want to deny those two facts.

As for your strawman argument concerning the bakery, we've had this discussion before in the US in the Civil Rights era, but then it revolved around race. Do you think a persons religious beliefs should be used to deny service to someone of a different race? If not, then you should probably realize that it shouldn't apply to a persons sexuality, either.

(08-28-2015 08:08 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 10:57 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 10:43 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Horrific incident. Unfortunately it is on the news everywhere, as is common nowadays with this type of thing. Part of me wishes I could just block it all out, but it is everywhere I turn. Sickening.

1 mass shooting per day now in the USA.

How many are with legally obtained guns

Quote:As guns proliferate...mass shootings proliferate

Except Guns are not proliferating



They are just about where they have been for 30 years.

I have a hard time believing there is a mass shooting everyday. Tom, source that please.

(08-28-2015 08:15 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 08:08 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 10:57 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 10:43 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Horrific incident. Unfortunately it is on the news everywhere, as is common nowadays with this type of thing. Part of me wishes I could just block it all out, but it is everywhere I turn. Sickening.

1 mass shooting per day now in the USA.

How many are with legally obtained guns

Quote:As guns proliferate...mass shootings proliferate

Except Guns are not proliferating



They are just about where they have been for 30 years.

I have a hard time believing there is a mass shooting everyday. Tom, source that please.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkb...y-in-2015/

I haven't really read into it so there is probably manipulation.

(08-28-2015 08:15 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 08:08 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 10:57 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 10:43 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Horrific incident. Unfortunately it is on the news everywhere, as is common nowadays with this type of thing. Part of me wishes I could just block it all out, but it is everywhere I turn. Sickening.

1 mass shooting per day now in the USA.

How many are with legally obtained guns

Quote:As guns proliferate...mass shootings proliferate

Except Guns are not proliferating



They are just about where they have been for 30 years.

I have a hard time believing there is a mass shooting everyday. Tom, source that please.

Per the Washington Post yesterday, "Aug. 26 is the 238th day of the year. And with the fatal shooting in Virginia today — in which a gunman shot himself after killing two reporters and wounding one more person — plus the shooting of four during a Minneapolis home invasion, the number of mass shooting incidents has risen to 247 for the year."

(08-28-2015 08:16 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 08:15 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 08:08 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 10:57 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 10:43 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Horrific incident. Unfortunately it is on the news everywhere, as is common nowadays with this type of thing. Part of me wishes I could just block it all out, but it is everywhere I turn. Sickening.

1 mass shooting per day now in the USA.

How many are with legally obtained guns

Quote:As guns proliferate...mass shootings proliferate

Except Guns are not proliferating



They are just about where they have been for 30 years.

I have a hard time believing there is a mass shooting everyday. Tom, source that please.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkb...y-in-2015/

I haven't really read into it so there is probably manipulation.

Data like that is hard to manipulate very much, in the first sentence they state what they use to define 'mass shooting', and numbers of shooting crimes and deaths are federally reported.

(08-27-2015 10:57 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 10:43 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Horrific incident. Unfortunately it is on the news everywhere, as is common nowadays with this type of thing. Part of me wishes I could just block it all out, but it is everywhere I turn. Sickening.

1 mass shooting per day now in the USA. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkb...y-in-2015/

As guns proliferate...mass shootings proliferate
As people carry guns outside their house more...more mass shootings
As gun controls are reduced to zero...more mass shootings

By the way, all this talk from the gun folks about removing or reducing access to guns by the insane or criminals has gone out the window, because there's no way to do it without getting rid of the 'no questions asked private sales at the gun show'..

There are so many errors and issues with this guy's article. I'm not gonna argue that his definition of "mass shooting" is very different than anyone else's and is an attempt to make the issue be more "catastrophic" sounding than it is. I'll instead take issue with some assumptions he makes without using any data to support his assumptions.

He states "we are now averaging more than 1 mass shooting per day". He doesn't show data from previous years to show that that average is higher or lower now than in the past. He attempts to "imply" it is higher now than in the past. Since gun deaths have decreased by 49% in this country since it's peak in 1993, one would assume that the average per day was significantly higher in the past. If so, and there are more guns now than in 1993, how can this be? Of course, using historical data doesn't support his agenda.

Back to the issue at hand....

In the metro I live in that has about 120,000 people, we've only had 4 murders in the last 5 years but yet, we have an extremely high gun ownership rate. How can this be? We have a high poverty rate. What gives? Could it be that more guns don't necessarily mean more gun deaths? Well, shut my mouth. Maybe there are other factors....no...no...no....let's not look at root causes....let's only focus on our political agendas and yank everyone's chains.

Lot of inner city, illegally obtained, gang drive-bys going on.

(08-28-2015 08:25 AM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 10:57 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 10:43 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Horrific incident. Unfortunately it is on the news everywhere, as is common nowadays with this type of thing. Part of me wishes I could just block it all out, but it is everywhere I turn. Sickening.

1 mass shooting per day now in the USA. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkb...y-in-2015/

As guns proliferate...mass shootings proliferate
As people carry guns outside their house more...more mass shootings
As gun controls are reduced to zero...more mass shootings

By the way, all this talk from the gun folks about removing or reducing access to guns by the insane or criminals has gone out the window, because there's no way to do it without getting rid of the 'no questions asked private sales at the gun show'..

There are so many errors and issues with this guy's article. I'm not gonna argue that his definition of "mass shooting" is very different than anyone else's and is an attempt to make the issue be more "catastrophic" sounding than it is. I'll instead take issue with some assumptions he makes without using any data to support his assumptions.

He states "we are now averaging more than 1 mass shooting per day". He doesn't show data from pervious years to show that that average is higher or lower now than in the past. He attempts to "imply" it is higher now than in the past. Since gun deaths have decreased by 49% in this country since it's peak in 1993, one would assume that the average per day was significantly higher in the past. If so, and there are more guns now than in 1993, how can this be? Of course, using historical data doesn't support his agenda.

Back to the issue at hand....

In the metro I live in that has about 120,000 people, we've only had 4 murders in the last 5 years but yet, we have an extremely high gun ownership rate. How can this be? We have a high poverty rate. What gives? Could it be that more guns don't necessarily mean more gun deaths? Well, shut my mouth. Maybe there are other factors....no...no...no....let's not look at root causes....let's only focus on our political agendas and yank everyone's chains.

I don't think you read the article itself, because he doesn't make much of an argument except to defend the usage of their definition of 'mass shooting' which is different than the FBI's. This is the text, in it's entirety.

Quote:Aug. 26 is the 238th day of the year. And with the fatal shooting in Virginia today — in which a gunman shot himself after killing two reporters and wounding one more person — plus the shooting of four during a Minneapolis home invasion, the number of mass shooting incidents has risen to 247 for the year.

These numbers are compiled by the moderators of the GunsAreCool subreddit, a sarcastically named community that tracks gun violence in America. They define "mass shooting" as any single incident in which at least four people are shot, including the gunman. The tracker comes in for some criticism because its definition is broader than the FBI's definition, which requires three or more people to be killed by gunfire. But the broader definition is nonetheless a useful one, because it captures many high-profile instances of violence — like the recent Lafayette theater shootings — that don't meet the FBI's criteria.

Some gun rights advocates — like John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center — object that the broader definition includes a lot of gang killings and domestic disputes that the average person wouldn't necessarily consider a "mass shooting." But there's an uncomfortable assumption here that some crime victims' lives should be valued differently — or are less worthy of attention — than others.

A more expansive definition of "mass shooting" underscores the extent to which firearms make it relatively easy to hurt large numbers of people in a very short time. With a gun, you're able to inflict bodily harm on a person once they're in your line of sight. With something like a knife or your hands, you need to get right up close to a person.

There's no easy fix to gun violence in this country. As gun rights proponents are quick to point out, municipalities with strict gun laws, like Chicago and D.C., see more than their fair share of gun crime. But it's nevertheless a fact that the level of gun violence we see in the U.S. is like nothing seen in other wealthy Western nations.

He doesn't mention anywhere that it's higher now, or that gun ownership is up, or anything at all, and in fact points out that there are areas with strict fun ownership laws that have very high gun violence.

(08-28-2015 08:14 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 08:04 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 10:52 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:27 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 09:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  If you can't go to the grocery store without packing heat or you feel the need to 'open bully', I mean 'open carry', then you're probably paranoid unless you got a damn good reason IMHO.

In my perfect world, no one would have to go door to door collecting weapons because it would be a felony to leave your house with one. Keep all the guns you want inside your home. But youre liable if any of those weapons leave your house.

How is going to the store with a gun paranoid? Are you scared of the gun or the people?
I would say YOU are the one being paranoid if you see a person with a gun. You just assume you are going to be shot and they are a bully

I'm not alone... Open Bully = Open Carry. The only reason to carry a weapon where people can see it ... is to implicitly threaten to kill someone if they backtalk you or disappoint you in any way.

You're projecting. Your weapon is not a gun but you do seem to believe that nobody should ever backtalk or disappoint you. Shutting down a business because they won't make you a damn cake is pretty dang close to robbing them at gun point.

I think you're being dense here. Tom might not be wording himself the best way possible, but open carry itself is something that every rational gunowner I know, including myself, looks down on. There is no reason to walk into a mall with an AR clone hung from your shoulder unless you want to cause a scene. There is no reason to walk down a residential neighborhood with a rifle slung over your shoulder unless you want an understandably nervous resident to call the police so you can waste their time citing the open carry laws and stating over and over that what you're doing is legal, while they just try to explain that they were called because people were worried. Guns are a tool, but they're a tool whose use is very specific and intentionally dangerous, and people who open carry are imbeciles who want to deny those two facts.

As for your strawman argument concerning the bakery, we've had this discussion before in the US in the Civil Rights era, but then it revolved around race. Do you think a persons religious beliefs should be used to deny service to someone of a different race? If not, then you should probably realize that it shouldn't apply to a persons sexuality, either.

Coming soon to a Mall near You !

(08-28-2015 08:29 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 08:25 AM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 10:57 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 10:43 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Horrific incident. Unfortunately it is on the news everywhere, as is common nowadays with this type of thing. Part of me wishes I could just block it all out, but it is everywhere I turn. Sickening.

1 mass shooting per day now in the USA. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkb...y-in-2015/

As guns proliferate...mass shootings proliferate
As people carry guns outside their house more...more mass shootings
As gun controls are reduced to zero...more mass shootings

By the way, all this talk from the gun folks about removing or reducing access to guns by the insane or criminals has gone out the window, because there's no way to do it without getting rid of the 'no questions asked private sales at the gun show'..

There are so many errors and issues with this guy's article. I'm not gonna argue that his definition of "mass shooting" is very different than anyone else's and is an attempt to make the issue be more "catastrophic" sounding than it is. I'll instead take issue with some assumptions he makes without using any data to support his assumptions.

He states "we are now averaging more than 1 mass shooting per day". He doesn't show data from pervious years to show that that average is higher or lower now than in the past. He attempts to "imply" it is higher now than in the past. Since gun deaths have decreased by 49% in this country since it's peak in 1993, one would assume that the average per day was significantly higher in the past. If so, and there are more guns now than in 1993, how can this be? Of course, using historical data doesn't support his agenda.

Back to the issue at hand....

In the metro I live in that has about 120,000 people, we've only had 4 murders in the last 5 years but yet, we have an extremely high gun ownership rate. How can this be? We have a high poverty rate. What gives? Could it be that more guns don't necessarily mean more gun deaths? Well, shut my mouth. Maybe there are other factors....no...no...no....let's not look at root causes....let's only focus on our political agendas and yank everyone's chains.

I don't think you read the article itself, because he doesn't make much of an argument except to defend the usage of their definition of 'mass shooting' which is different than the FBI's. This is the text, in it's entirety.

Quote:Aug. 26 is the 238th day of the year. And with the fatal shooting in Virginia today — in which a gunman shot himself after killing two reporters and wounding one more person — plus the shooting of four during a Minneapolis home invasion, the number of mass shooting incidents has risen to 247 for the year.

These numbers are compiled by the moderators of the GunsAreCool subreddit, a sarcastically named community that tracks gun violence in America. They define "mass shooting" as any single incident in which at least four people are shot, including the gunman. The tracker comes in for some criticism because its definition is broader than the FBI's definition, which requires three or more people to be killed by gunfire. But the broader definition is nonetheless a useful one, because it captures many high-profile instances of violence — like the recent Lafayette theater shootings — that don't meet the FBI's criteria.

Some gun rights advocates — like John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center — object that the broader definition includes a lot of gang killings and domestic disputes that the average person wouldn't necessarily consider a "mass shooting." But there's an uncomfortable assumption here that some crime victims' lives should be valued differently — or are less worthy of attention — than others.

A more expansive definition of "mass shooting" underscores the extent to which firearms make it relatively easy to hurt large numbers of people in a very short time. With a gun, you're able to inflict bodily harm on a person once they're in your line of sight. With something like a knife or your hands, you need to get right up close to a person.

There's no easy fix to gun violence in this country. As gun rights proponents are quick to point out, municipalities with strict gun laws, like Chicago and D.C., see more than their fair share of gun crime. But it's nevertheless a fact that the level of gun violence we see in the U.S. is like nothing seen in other wealthy Western nations.

He doesn't mention anywhere that it's higher now, or that gun ownership is up, or anything at all, and in fact points out that there are areas with strict fun ownership laws that have very high gun violence.

Yes, I read the entire article before I posted my reply. My post was an attempt to show that Tom was attempting to use that article to defend his own argument that more guns mean more mass shootings. The article had a sensationalist title meant to grab attention, which would lead low information readers to leap to conclusions.

Has blacklivesmatter come out in support of the black shooter?

(08-28-2015 08:19 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 08:16 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 08:15 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 08:08 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 10:57 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  1 mass shooting per day now in the USA.

How many are with legally obtained guns

Quote:As guns proliferate...mass shootings proliferate

Except Guns are not proliferating



They are just about where they have been for 30 years.

I have a hard time believing there is a mass shooting everyday. Tom, source that please.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkb...y-in-2015/

I haven't really read into it so there is probably manipulation.

Data like that is hard to manipulate very much, in the first sentence they state what they use to define 'mass shooting', and numbers of shooting crimes and deaths are federally reported.

I suppose it's no less an acceptable definition that others for 'mass shooting'. Personally I tend to discount criminal acts, for instance where gangs are shooting one another or altercations with police. It's just my definition, but mass shooting to me is where an individual either specifically targets or randomly shoots numerous people, not including himself or police.

Either way doesn't matter, and its not really anything to be shocked over.

(08-28-2015 08:35 AM)WKUApollo Wrote:  Yes, I read the entire article before I posted my reply. My post was an attempt to show that Tom was attempting to use that article to defend his own argument that more guns mean more mass shootings. The article had a sensationalist title meant to grab attention, which would lead low information readers to leap to conclusions.

I agree that Toms arguments aren't backed up by the article, I just expected the article to have much more slant or bias than it did, and quite frankly, was happy that it didn't. I suppose the writer could have done more research onto the historical numbers of shootings that would qualify, but outside of that, I think it actually presented a fair argument as to why the FBI criteria isn't telling the entire story. Even the Louisiana theater shooting wouldn't be a mass shooting using their criteria simply because not enough people died.

(08-28-2015 08:29 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 08:25 AM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 10:57 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 10:43 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  Horrific incident. Unfortunately it is on the news everywhere, as is common nowadays with this type of thing. Part of me wishes I could just block it all out, but it is everywhere I turn. Sickening.

1 mass shooting per day now in the USA. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkb...y-in-2015/

As guns proliferate...mass shootings proliferate
As people carry guns outside their house more...more mass shootings
As gun controls are reduced to zero...more mass shootings

By the way, all this talk from the gun folks about removing or reducing access to guns by the insane or criminals has gone out the window, because there's no way to do it without getting rid of the 'no questions asked private sales at the gun show'..

There are so many errors and issues with this guy's article. I'm not gonna argue that his definition of "mass shooting" is very different than anyone else's and is an attempt to make the issue be more "catastrophic" sounding than it is. I'll instead take issue with some assumptions he makes without using any data to support his assumptions.

He states "we are now averaging more than 1 mass shooting per day". He doesn't show data from pervious years to show that that average is higher or lower now than in the past. He attempts to "imply" it is higher now than in the past. Since gun deaths have decreased by 49% in this country since it's peak in 1993, one would assume that the average per day was significantly higher in the past. If so, and there are more guns now than in 1993, how can this be? Of course, using historical data doesn't support his agenda.

Back to the issue at hand....

In the metro I live in that has about 120,000 people, we've only had 4 murders in the last 5 years but yet, we have an extremely high gun ownership rate. How can this be? We have a high poverty rate. What gives? Could it be that more guns don't necessarily mean more gun deaths? Well, shut my mouth. Maybe there are other factors....no...no...no....let's not look at root causes....let's only focus on our political agendas and yank everyone's chains.

I don't think you read the article itself, because he doesn't make much of an argument except to defend the usage of their definition of 'mass shooting' which is different than the FBI's. This is the text, in it's entirety.

Quote:Aug. 26 is the 238th day of the year. And with the fatal shooting in Virginia today — in which a gunman shot himself after killing two reporters and wounding one more person — plus the shooting of four during a Minneapolis home invasion, the number of mass shooting incidents has risen to 247 for the year.

These numbers are compiled by the moderators of the GunsAreCool subreddit, a sarcastically named community that tracks gun violence in America. They define "mass shooting" as any single incident in which at least four people are shot, including the gunman. The tracker comes in for some criticism because its definition is broader than the FBI's definition, which requires three or more people to be killed by gunfire. But the broader definition is nonetheless a useful one, because it captures many high-profile instances of violence — like the recent Lafayette theater shootings — that don't meet the FBI's criteria.

Some gun rights advocates — like John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center — object that the broader definition includes a lot of gang killings and domestic disputes that the average person wouldn't necessarily consider a "mass shooting." But there's an uncomfortable assumption here that some crime victims' lives should be valued differently — or are less worthy of attention — than others.

A more expansive definition of "mass shooting" underscores the extent to which firearms make it relatively easy to hurt large numbers of people in a very short time. With a gun, you're able to inflict bodily harm on a person once they're in your line of sight. With something like a knife or your hands, you need to get right up close to a person.

There's no easy fix to gun violence in this country. As gun rights proponents are quick to point out, municipalities with strict gun laws, like Chicago and D.C., see more than their fair share of gun crime. But it's nevertheless a fact that the level of gun violence we see in the U.S. is like nothing seen in other wealthy Western nations.

He doesn't mention anywhere that it's higher now, or that gun ownership is up, or anything at all, and in fact points out that there are areas with strict fun ownership laws that have very high gun violence.

Need a dictionary again...

were-now-averaging-more-than-one-mass-shooting-per-day-in-2015

Seems to imply that we may not have been in past years. He never said it the implication is there.