Mass shooting are uncommon, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

[tech30528]

Re: Mass shooting are uncommin, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

Cellphones have more purpose than guns do. That was a very bad argument. If you want to argue about cell phones please do it elsewhere. Make your analogy fit next time.

The only way the analogy wouldn't work is if your purpose was to eliminate guns for some other reason. If you want them restricted because of the number of injuries and deaths resulting from their use then the analogy is perfectly sound. Whatever the intended purpose of a cell phone, in the hands of idiots they are statistically 50,000 times as dangerous as firearms. Don't like the analogy? Go **** yourself. You're a troll, nothing but a troll, and you lack the authority to invalidate anyone else's opinion based on your narrow perspective.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: Mass shooting are uncommin, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

No offense but reddit made up their own definition that includes a significantly larger amount of incidents as "mass shootings" than the definition used by most sources. The official definition from the FBI is that a "mass murder" is where a murderer kills 4 people at one time in one place, not including themselves. Using that as a basis for "mass shooting", all you would do is also require that the murders be due to gun violence. Reddit's definition doesn't require the victims to die and also includes the shooter if they commit suicide. That exponentially increases the numbers they'd find. It smacks of yellow journalism.

Different posting style but pretty much exactly what I was going to say.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: Mass shooting are uncommin, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

This is not a discussion of that. That is for another topic. this is about how defining mass shootings with too small of a brush skews numbers down. I do not think it is terribly unreasonable to call a shooting spree where 4 people were only wounded a mass shooting. I actually thought that these sorts of shootings were uncommon and i figured we would hear about woundings. This was outside of my point of view and I was looking for stuff like this. It seems to me that there is a definite effort to lower numbers and make such events seem uncommon merely because the shooter didn't get a high enough score. It is clear there are many more people trying to play the game. You may wish to argue that our response to incidents keeps things from being fatal and therefor this is what you need to expect from having guns at this level of legality, but those numbers should be presented to the public and not hidden by playing pretend that a mass shooting is not a mass shooting just because the shooter sucked at it.

Having a definition that is too wide can also skew numbers. For example under Reddit's definition 1 person defending themselves against 4 attackers would be considered a "mass shooting". With the FBI's definition it only includes murders...which would not include the 1 person defending themself because it is not considered a murder. It is justifiable homicide and/or self defense.

 

[Surtr]

Re: Mass shooting are uncommin, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

Taking another human being's life is a highly unnatural act.

So what's diffrent today than fifty yeas ago ?

Not really. We've been murdering each other since we were a species.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

Re: Mass shooting are uncommin, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

Wait a minute, we're relying on Reddit to do all our research for us now?

 

[FederalRepublic]

Re: Mass shooting are uncommin, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

we are not talking about banning guns here or crime rate. I am saying we should be seeing the data, and it was sneaky to remove wounded from the data on who was shot. You are trying to alter the argument. It is a dishonest tactic.

I'm not trying to alter the argument, nor am I being at all dishonest with you. You think it's sneaky and dishonest to include only deaths in the statistics for mass shootings and I agreed with you. Similarly, using the term "gun violence" when trying to find the causes of various incidents is sneaky and dishonest. You could certainly try to lower the numbers of mass shootings by removing guns from society, but if you facilitate a corresponding increase in violent crime with your policy, was it truly beneficial?

 

[FederalRepublic]

Re: Mass shooting are uncommin, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

We treat the differently because they are different items. Make a better analogy because that one doesn't make any sense.

It doesn't make sense because you missed the point. Guns can be hazardous to your health, yet they can save your life. They do have a benefit to society.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Re: Mass shooting are uncommin, right? 247 mass shootings this year alone

It is simple, there should be a federal database which any gun retailer can submit an application to and have it confirmed or denied. Every gun sale has to have that database checked. that was hard to do before, but now we can do it.

It is simple and it's already done. FBI — Gun Checks/NICS

There is such a thing as private sales where it's not required. If you want to debate that segment, we can.

 

[wassamatau]

The U.S. ranks #3 in the world for gun murder. If you remove only 4 cities (Chicago, Detroit, Washington Dc, and New Orleans) we would rank 4th from the bottom in the entire world. What do these cities have in common? Very strict gun control laws. You see, bad guys do not willingly give up their guns, good guys follow the law. When you have these strict laws, only bad guys go around with guns at the ready. If God himself comes down and takes away every gun we would be in much worse trouble. The hard core prisoners learn how to kill with a paperclip and spend all day lifting weights. The average disarmed citizen has absolutely no chance against one of these brutes. They almost all get out of prison sooner or later.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

The U.S. ranks #3 in the world for gun murder. If you remove only 4 cities (Chicago, Detroit, Washington Dc, and New Orleans) we would rank 4th from the bottom in the entire world. What do these cities have in common? Very strict gun control laws. You see, bad guys do not willingly give up their guns, good guys follow the law. When you have these strict laws, only bad guys go around with guns at the ready. If God himself comes down and takes away every gun we would be in much worse trouble. The hard core prisoners learn how to kill with a paperclip and spend all day lifting weights. The average disarmed citizen has absolutely no chance against one of these brutes. They almost all get out of prison sooner or later.

While I don't support removing the general access to firearms, these arguments are horribly flawed and ignore the fact there is little means to prevent guns from crossing state, county and even city lines. The same can't be said about national borders

 

[TurtleDude]

While I don't support removing the general access to firearms, these arguments are horribly flawed and ignore the fact there is little means to prevent guns from crossing state, county and even city lines. The same can't be said about national borders

really? so the borders prevent tons of illegals and narcotics from coming in even though both are in violation of the law. what means do you think would prevent guns from crossing state, county and city lines? Checkpoints on every road?

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

really? so the borders prevent tons of illegals and narcotics from coming in even though both are in violation of the law.

It's rather amazing that you made it through Yale and still can't parse a simple statement: What I made clear was that the mechanisms for preventing cross county, stat,e and city trade are blatantly inferior to the ones present at the national border. So it's a faulty comparison to draw to any nationally operated ban (where national borders would come into play)

But to touch on your point, there is little evidence that guns would act in the same manner as drugs on the black market. Their bulky, weigh a lot, are generally made from easy to detect materials like various metals, don't hold the profit margin of drugs, are not consumed, etc, etc. Also, as a more practical example, if guns would be like drugs in an illicit economy, then why are we not flooded by cheap autos from over seas? Or, in fact, why isn't japan flooded by them, even though drugs like marijuana, cocaine, extacy, and meth are widely available?