The Math Of Mass Shootings

Washington Post
Berkowitz, Gamio, Lu, Lindeman, and Uhrmacher.
Sounds like a law firm.
Found the stats to be very interesting.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/

 

Interesting find, it mostly confirms my gut feeling that there is a huge variety and focusing on "guns" as a common factor may be the wrong approach. There are probably deadlier things than guns available to the average western citizen, the less we dig into that the better, read the final chapter of Tom Clancy's 1994 "debt of honor" book to see what I mean.

 

Because we have a Second Amendment and they can't actually ban guns, the anti-gunners always focus on laws which have zero affect on criminals. Felons are already banned from even touching a gun. Laws aimed at me, don't mean anything to them.

When you get into these mass shootings, look at the laws and proposed laws and you quickly see that none of them would change the outcome. This last pair in San Berdoo could have bought any gun they wanted. They weren't criminals. No proposed law would have stopped them from buying those guns.

Others, like the crazy kid in Ct. murdered his mother and stole her guns.

I haven't read the article, but the real math is that the majority of shootings are in the inner city, among gangs. They are already felons, or are under the age of legal gun ownership. Laws don't stop them. Of course, the media ignore them because they're black and black lives really don't matter to the media or politicians. That issue is not a gun problem, it's a generations of fatherless children problem. It's a social construct.

When you get into these mass shootings then it's suddenly "Oh My God, they're shooting white people!" Then the president goes on TV and the media aligns with the leftist politicians and everyone blames the NRA and demand we "do something." And the "somethings" would have no effect because of the reasons above.

 

Looks like media is mostly left controlled. ..How to explain kardashebutts etc.
Media rarely reports on how guns prevent crime.
2nd amendment in action:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/09/2nd-amendment-in-action-armed-driver-stops-attempted-mass-shooting/

 

Ive said before...you cant shoot anyone if you dont have a gun...you have to punch them or try and find a knife...id rather a knife wielding maniac than a semi-auto wielding maniac, the results of both attacks are usually miles apart.
Gun control is a real issue, i can totally understand Americans not agreeing with the concept as they have grown up with guns and gun ownership, have more guns than people (give or take) - and glorify shooting people in every second TV show they produce.
However, the "logic" is undefeatable...
Like prohibition on alcohol...it DOES have an effect. Its simple to think prohibition is about stopping the sale and use of alcohol...it doesnt. What it DOES do is create a supply and demand problem...more demand than supply pushes the price up, couple that with a lengthy jail time and the price goes up even more...the average schlock dude cant afford alcohol or not as much as he/she would like...their income doesnt go up with the price.
My understanding is the majority of gun crimes in Mexico are committed with weapons sold in the US...this alone should be ringing alarm bells - There are too many weapons floating around, too easily bought or stolen...the answer is not education - even i have lost my sh%t from time to time - its simply not having the weapon available! The US is balking IMO because the solution is far reaching and difficult to attain now that they have gone that far down that road.

 

Canada adopted the no guns theory. Calgary/ Toronto etc now have a major gun crime epidemic. Look it up.
Ask those shot recently in CA if they'd have liked to have had a gun on them...oh yeah they are dead so we can't.
They could have fought back and even reduced the casualties.
Guns saving lives is way under reported. Because liberal media.

 

I looked it up Poppy...What they call an "epidemic", only looks like a mild case of the flu compared to Detroit. But, it is not just Toronto, most US cities are seeing a sharp spike too.
https://www.rt.com/usa/314074-murder-rates-us-cities/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/us/murder-rates-rising-sharply-in-many-us-cities.html

 

It is damn impolite to shoot someone here. Where did our manners go.

 

Canada adopted a "no guns theory"? Then why did they issue some 412,992 gun licenses and renewals in 2014?
Not much of a no gun policy there, or are you alluding to a more specific matter?

 

This morning, NBC (I think it was them, it was too damn early for me) ran a segment on Australia's more restrictive gun laws, part of which includes assault type bans, showing a steady reduction in deaths by GSW. Too be fair the trend was going down before the ban went into effect and the ban did not prevent the recent terrorist attack there using a assault type rifle.

make of it what you will

 

They did?!? Well, I guess its time I disposed of a few items.....

 

The US is balking because the bill of rights doesn't allow banning guns. They can't just "pass a law" like they do in other countries. If they tried, then a significant number of people would rise up because they nullified the constitution - they've staged a coup.

 

I dont think they'd stand up for a constitution change...who really cares about the contitution? Only people it affects...maybe Americans are different...maybe the Arabs arent the only ones living in the past...

 

Not entirely true, there was a ten year period where Assault rifles were banned and some areas still do.

 

Many of us took an oath to defend the Constitution against enemies, foreign and domestic. If some political party burns the Bill of Rights then I'm a slave. I won't allow that.

 

Assault rifles were never banned. The law only forced cosmetic changes to guns - remove the bayonet lug and silly things like that. You could buy a AK or an AR and all the 30 round mags you wanted all through that period.

 

And if the Constitution is legally and lawfully amended by a 2/3rds supermajority of the House and Senate and then ratified by the required 3/4 of the states? Then, you would not be defending the Constitution, you would be the one tearing it up.

 

That's only because the ban was not retroactive...It did not apply to what had already been produced or purchased before the ban went into effect.

 

That would be fine, but that won't happen.

No, you're absolutely wrong. The law was just a BS law passed to please the stupid. It banned cosmetic aspects on some rifles - things like bayonet lugs which made them "scary." It banned a few rifles by name, so they changed the names. Manufacturing and sales increased during that whole period. It banned nothing except drive-by bayonettings which wasn't really an issue with anyone with an IQ over 60.

 

Well actually assault rifles were pretty much banned at least, unless you had a very expensive permit, by the regulations on automatic weapons. People keep confusing assault rifles (which has a very well defined military meaning) with "assault weapons" the latter is a term that was only defined in a law that limited certain semiautomatic weapons that looked military. As you mention remove a bayonet lug or put a custom stock on the gun and it was completely legal. Saw a lot of SKS imports with those stocks that have thumb holes getting imported when the law went into effect.