Be on the lookout for articles about the increase in shootings

I have been waiting on the “blood bath” stories, now in day 4 of TX Constitutional carry…

I like to point out the demographics of that violence.

Just to really get them frothing at the mouth. Hint:
"It twastnt the mormans!"

Related article.

https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2021/8/29/gun-speak

"The results of this shift have not only been farcical, but have also greatly diminished our understanding of reality. It is now common for media outlets, such as CNN, to describe any criminal event as a “mass shooting,” irrespective of the circumstances or the setting. There’s been a gang fight in Chicago? “Mass shooting.” We have news of a family tragedy inside an apartment building? “Mass shooting.” So imprecise has the media become, in fact, that by the end of 2019 almost every American outlet was repeating the claim made by the activist Gun Violence Archive that there had been 418 mass shootings in the United States that year. The real number, per the definition used by the FBI, was six."

The real number, per the definition used by the FBI, was six."

Click to expand...

I did not know that. Thanks for posting it.

BryanDavis said:

The real number, per the definition used by the FBI, was six."

Click to expand...

Actually, according to the FBI themselves it was 30 for 2019 & 40 for 2020 but point taken…

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2020-070121.pdf/view

Yep. Them Amish are getting ornery again!

Racheal Madcow will have the details at 8pm!

Dadgum moving goal posts! Pretty soon they will take away our gun rights for two weeks to “flatten the curve.” Two weeks turns into forever.

Perhaps mass shootings and gun violence will be significantly reduced by our administrations new gun control measures, namely giving a foreign country over 350,000 AR-15's and over 125,000 handguns. Can you imagine what could possibly happen if nearly 475,000 new guns were distributed/sold in the USA!

But such a gun massacre never Seems to be connected..by so-called media...eh..."Journalists"....to some cities allowing so many thugs to "bond out" on so little cash. Or zero bond.

A police officer patrolling at the Hyatt Place North hotel near ATL Airport ( * and this was in the Good 'Ole Days-about eight years Ago) told me that a fellow had carjacked a guy, then the Same Day committed armed home invasion.
That Thug near Atlanta Airport, who simply needed more love and understanding, "Bonded Out" at 10% of his nominal bond and would probably not appear in court.

The LEO claimed that a 10 percent bond was quite routine.

It “aint” about guns.

As soon as lockdown was lifted, a lot, and I do mean a lot , of locals were found dead. Not saying it's guns, gun owners or anything, just an observation.

daverich4 said:

Actually, according to the FBI themselves it was 30 for 2019 & 40 for 2020 but point taken…

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2020-070121.pdf/view

Click to expand...

In FBI-speak apparently "active shooter incident" and "mass killing" are two different things.

See attached:

This discussion has a touch of naivety in it. Folks assume that pointing out that the rise in gun crime, multiple shootings in gang related urban incidents will convince antigun folks that your nice people's guns are nice. Nice people should have them.

They don't see it that way. The existence of instruments in any hands except for some limited sporting uses is not understanderable.

Read https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/10/responsible-gun-ownership-is-a-lie/619811/

The way to reduce gun violence is by convincing ordinary, “responsible” handgun owners that their weapons make them, their families, and those around them less safe.

Click to expand...

The existence of civilian guns in ANY hands is not acceptable. You will not make the case that nice guns in nice hands are just fine.

The existence of new guns (and old) in civilian hands means that they can filter into the hands of urban criminals, rural criminals, nuts, terrorists, folks prone to suicide, etc. Criminologists study time to crime - meaning how long does it take new guns sold legally to get into bad hands or be misused. Doesn't matter if they are stolen, lost, straw sales, etc. That they are sold first at all means that some will migrate to bad uses.

Now, talking about thugs, urban gangs, etc. with a tinge clearly of racial aspect rather weakens your case. It implies that we don't care if these folks of a class we don't like shoot up their neighborhoods as long as we 'nice' people have guns. Making that differential will clearly not convince antigunners that you are nice. It may do the opposite.

Unless, you can make a case for a positive reason or reasons for civilian gun ownership, the cause has troubles. I note the SD argument is not convincing in the article and SD arguments support gun type and magazine bans. Why because of the constant blather of 3,3,3 - 5 is enough. Only a nut needs a higher capacity gun or mag. Arguments in lower courts based on SD have been dismissed by judges who don't buy you need such for SD. Heck, I could quote the folks here who spout that. I got a tactical one round shotgun, I got a BP revolver with 5 shots that it takes 8 seconds to reload. I'm fine carrying an LCP in my nice neighborhood.

Defense against tyranny is a reasonable argument but discarded by antis - can't fight a B-2 or a tank! Even progun folks have made that statement. The NRA discarded the defense against tyranny as their market research said it didn't sell. Also, some of the defense against tyranny folks have left wing politics that the many of the gun world strongly disapprove of or are of the groups just denounced in the 'urban' mantra. The demonstrations with open AR carrying at legislatures and the 1/6 insurrection did nothing to convince the middle of the road or anti folks of the civilian utility of such guns. I note some on the progressive side are coming around to having guns to defend against tyranny but their tyranny is not the right's tyranny.

To conclude, I don't think much use will be gotten out of trying to differentiate gun crimes and types of rampage as not being rampages. Can you change the anti mind - some can be change and force for it is usually when they have perceived threats. That is an emotional appeal. It does work the other way when a progun person suffers a gun related loss.

The other procedure will be if SCOTUS gets off its butt and makes some clear, unambiguous and decisive finds for gun rights. Removing the gun and mag bans. Freeing up and supporting the carry of firearms without onerous restrictions. Making shall issue concealed carry the law of land would suffice practically.

That's my take.

It’s a desperately- needed, coordinated (among the mass media) Gun distraction from the terrible press about terrible judgement regarding a “foreign country”, along with the intentional neglect of many US cities’ crime scenarios.

Victimhood equals power.

BryanDavis said:

In FBI-speak apparently "active shooter incident" and "mass killing" are two different things.

See attached:

Click to expand...

I’m not sure where “mass killings” come into this. You were comparing the liberal media’s figures for “mass shootings” which the FBI calls “Active shooting”. So far there hasn’t been any discussion of events where large numbers of people were killed. At least, that’s not what the liberal media is referring to.

To be honest most of the fearmongering I see is on gun forums. I've lost count of how many times I read that need to carry _____________ now because crime and shootings are rampant. One could be forgiven for thinking that venturing out to get grab the newspaper off the porch without a mini-gun is tantamount to suicide. A mini-gun with two reloads, that is!

Unfortunately I think in another 7 days we may not be talking about "fear mongering".

Good Ol' Boy said:

Unfortunately I think in another 7 days we may not be talking about "fear mongering".

Click to expand...

Know something we don't?

BryanDavis said:

The real number, per the definition used by the FBI, was six."

Click to expand...

The definition, that the FBI used, excluded a lot of shootings where there were multiples of people shot. Even by the FBI, the number was at least 30...
https://armedamericannews.org/new-f...-shootings-10-times-lower-than-media-reports/

The FBI's incidents tend to be limited to those that the FBI wants to address. Their criteria include things like they must be public incidents, but not driveby shootings or tied to drug activity. "Robberies gone bad" are not included. So strangely, said incidents could result in there being a mass murder via gunfire and yet they would not include it in their tally of mass shootings. The FBI studies tend to focus on incident like theater, mall, club, church, and sometimes school shootings and the like. In other words, the focus is on incidents that they hope to be able to figure out a way to curtail by studying the traits behind them.

There were at least 3 school shootings in 2019 or more people shot (UNC Charlotte, Highlands Ranch Stem School in CO, Mobile AL high school football game shooting). They should all certainly be on the list, but what else happened in 2019 that might make the list???

Dec 2019 12 people shot Pensacola Naval Air Station
Dec 2019 10 people shot in the French Quarter after football game
Aug 2019 46 people shot Cielo Vista Mall in El Paso
Aug 2019 37 people shot outside a bar in Dayton, OH after a man was not granted entry
July 2019 20 people were shot at the Gilroy Garlic Festival, CA
July 2019 13 people were shot in at a public event in a public park by two attackers in New York
May 2019 16 people were shot at a Virginia Beach public works building
Feb 2019 11 people shot in Aurora, IL in a workplace shooting including 5 responding cops

So this is just a sampling of mass shootings 2019 that were in public places, not driveby, not drug related, not familial, etc. Somehow, the number is greater than 6.

I will say this again; I live on the outskirts of St. Louis. Every single day the local news reports shootings/ killings in the same part of the City (the North side) by the same “group” of people in their same neighborhoods - it is as predictable as sunrise - every single day, every single solitary day! And you can predict just like sunrise that in other parts of the City there will be no killings/ shootings every single day - every single day.
Now what is not discussed is the ability to discuss what happens every single day in St. Louis City. In turn, I have to type my presentation on this blog in a certain manner using/ not using certain words because we all now live in a world of absolute denial about discussing what happens every single day. Think about what is not said these days - your inner struggle to use the right words or the right silence even though your eyes and ears are screaming at you that you do see and you do hear what you can no longer openly discuss.
What has been conditioned in all of us now is an association of guilt with discussing a truth. Discussing the truth is now associated with shunning, attacks, being silenced, criticized, shamed, etc - we are now no longer allowed to discuss the truth and we readily accept it - think about that in context for a moment.
Again, shoutings/ killings every single day in St. Louis (in all major cities) and we are not allowed to drill down into the details for discussion for fear of retaliation - one can pull up the murder stats provided by the St. Louis PD and the numbers just scream the truth but, one is not allowed to say it - not allowed to discuss the truth - again I will say this, how in the hell did we allow ourselves to get here????

When they report deaths by "gun violence" it most likely includes legitimate, legal, incidents of self defense.

BryanDavis said:

In FBI-speak apparently "active shooter incident" and "mass killing" are two different things.

See attached:

Click to expand...

Interestingly, the FBI does not make that distinction per se in the report, and likely because the two certainly may have considerable overlap. Whether or not an active shooter incident turns into a mass shooting or mass killing really depends on the productivity of the shooter and in the case of mass killing, in part on the ability for aid to be rendered for those not already dead on scene.

Since you recited/reposted this, I think you may be missing the point that just because the FBI did a restrictive sort of study doesn't mean that the parameters of the particular study are defining of the topic as a whole. They do have a definition for an active shooter.

"The FBI has designated 40 shootings in 2020 as active shooter incidents. The FBI defines an active shooter as one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area."

and they specifically state...
"This report is part of a series of FBI active shooter-related products published since September 2014. These reports are not intended to explore all facets of active shooter incidents but rather intended to provide law enforcement officers, other first responders, corporations, educators, and the public with a baseline understanding of active shooter incidents."

file:///C:/Users/Carpe%20Sus/Downloads/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2020-070121.pdf

So, it is a selective survey that doesn't embrace all active shooter incidents, just some, which they have narrowed/selected based on some parameters..

"When evaluating shooting incidents to determine if they met the FBI’s active shooter definition, researchers considered for inclusion:
■ Shootings in public places
■ Shootings occurring at more than one location
■ Shootings where the shooter’s actions were not the result of another criminal act
■ Shootings resulting in a mass killing
■ Shootings indicating apparent spontaneity by the shooter
■ Shootings where the shooter appeared to methodically search for potential victims
■ Shootings that appeared focused on injury to people, not buildings or objects

This report does not encompass all gun-related shootings. A gun-related incident was excluded if research established it was the result of:
■ Self-defense
■ Gang violence
■ Drug violence
■ Contained residential or domestic disputes
■ Controlled barricade/hostage situations
■ Crossfire as a byproduct of another ongoing criminal act
■ An action that appeared not to have put other people in peril"