chipcom
member
I wonder why they never count the number of mass killings caused by automobiles every day?
NOT A TROLL - Serious Question
- Thread starter guitarguy314
- Start date
- Status
Red Wind
Member
That is a fine, instructive graph, benEzra. You are putting up some outstanding posts. Thank you.
MachIVshooter
Member
Because intentional vehicular homicide is really pretty rare, especially cases that result in multiple fatalities. There was the Lunatic who plowed down a sidewalk in Reno a couple years back, but that's the only one in recent history that was both intentional and resulted in more than a couple of deaths.
It's fairly common knowledge that MVAs account for more deaths in this country every year than firearm related incidents of all types, but nearly all of them are unintentional. The opposite is true of firearms, where intentional homicide and suicide are the extreme majority of fatal injuries.
boatdoc173
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2014
- Messages
- 219
several answers:
1. obama and hi s minions(bloom bergs too) have an agenda and they have all media forms putting out misinformation about every shot fired in the uSA it seems. This encourages copycats. Once one mentally ill person is seen on tv doing something like last weeks shooting (or the Planned parent hood shooting or Aurora) it seems like quite a few mentally ill get that idea in their heads and act on it
2. no gun zones--enough said
3.terrorist attacks--get used to it--the borders ar e being breached by illegals from all countries but the overwhelming #s are muslims from the ME and africa(per our border patrols). non vetted(like that helps anyway) and they seem to find black market guns or have ghost gun purchases to do their deeds
I am sur e there are plenty of other reasons but these 3 are the main ones I think of
1. obama and hi s minions(bloom bergs too) have an agenda and they have all media forms putting out misinformation about every shot fired in the uSA it seems. This encourages copycats. Once one mentally ill person is seen on tv doing something like last weeks shooting (or the Planned parent hood shooting or Aurora) it seems like quite a few mentally ill get that idea in their heads and act on it
2. no gun zones--enough said
3.terrorist attacks--get used to it--the borders ar e being breached by illegals from all countries but the overwhelming #s are muslims from the ME and africa(per our border patrols). non vetted(like that helps anyway) and they seem to find black market guns or have ghost gun purchases to do their deeds
I am sur e there are plenty of other reasons but these 3 are the main ones I think of
Last edited:
boatdoc173
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2014
- Messages
- 219
Aragon
member
I was rather disappointed by the responses you received. Many seemed fairly defensive, dismissive or just ignorant. I think the following factors play a large part in "why do so many (mass) shootings happen here in the US?" in no specific order:
* Political denial. Both the pro and anti-gun factions play accounting games about what constitutes a "mass shooting." This wastes time and resources and keeps the real problems from being focused upon.
* The stigma and cost of truly dealing with mental health in the US. Mental health is easily the #1 issue that drives mass-shootings. Until now the US has lacked the political resolve to really delve into this issue. Other countries DO have far better mental health systems.
* Freedom. We do still have a fair amount of freedom in the US compared to other countries. If some of the whack-jobs that commit the "mass murders" lived in other countries, in many cases they would be dealt with due to their mental issues -- and not in a nice way in many cases.
* Family. I'm not certain how this compares to every other country but the "family unit" has long imploded in the US. Divorce (or never being married in the first place) is rampant. One parent families. Separation from grandparents and other close blood relatives. No typical family "check and balance" that was so common in generation past -- and it still quite common in at least some other countries.
* Media. If a "mass shooting" takes place in the US (particularly in CA), the information is going to make it around the world very quickly and the murdering sickos realize this. This flow of (mis)information is exacerbated by the anti-gun camp.
* Over-prescription of psychotropic drugs. A huge number of the "mass murders" were done by individuals taking such drugs. I suspect that other countries with similar levels of use (assuming there are some) lack the freedom mentioned about and/or people in general cannot get their hands on firearms.
* Lack of education/training. Firearms have always been a part of American culture. In generation past, youngsters were taught to understand and respect firearms. Now they are taught to fear and hate them. I believe this loss of education has led to an unhealthy allure for some sickos to firearms. It has also led to a great many non-sickos not having a clue about firearms.
* Religious terrorism. Arguably new to US with respect to "mass shootings."
Last edited:
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
I think this is a misconception. To the extent that you can lump mass shooters all together--a risky thing to do--they pick places where people gather for peaceful purposes with little to no expectation of violence or even stress.The intent of the shooters is to make a dramatic statement and shock folks by disrupting this peace. A shopping mall, class room or school, restaurant, movie theater, etc. is a place they choose to do this and fits their bill. If there is a sign on the wall saying "No guns allowed" that's incidental to the shooter, the primary thing about the place is that no one there expects to be shot that day. They are there for the everyday business of life. The shooters want to disrupt that.
tipoc
MachIVshooter
Member
They're defensive and dismissive because the OP is using a false premise, one that presupposes an epidemic which does not actually exist.
It would seem you've fallen for the same lie, trying to answer why something is happening without bothering to verify that it is, in fact, occurring.
stonecutter2
Member
Be mindful of tossing the agenda thing around - the websites linked to in this thread very much have their own agendas, as well.
The only way to responsibly see through the agenda or bias of any source or perspective is to view information from a variety of sources.
Red Wind
Member
The graph showing the huge drop in homicides since 1979 is the truth.All else is politics and media bias.
We are as safe as Beaver Cleaver or The Nelsons today!
We are as safe as Beaver Cleaver or The Nelsons today!
Deanimator
Member
No it's not. It's simple observation.
You mean like gun shows and the National Matches at Camp Perry?
No, the intent of the shooters is to shoot as many people as possible WITHOUT being shot before they can accomplish this. Going some place where it's likely people will be armed flies in the face of that. No wouldbe mass murderer goes some place to get shot before he can kill anybody.
Who goes some place TO get shot?
Sham "gun free zones" are the equivalent of using bloody fish guts as shark repellent. They strongly ATTRACT that which is supposedly desired to be repelled.
Aragon
member
No, that's not what he posted. He said "...Why do so many (mass) shootings happen here in the US?.."
A lot of multiple shootings (I'm not going to debate the semantics of the definition of "mass shooting") do take place in the US -- irrespective of how many take place elsewhere.
Certainly more in the US then there were in years past.
Sorry but no sale...
I'm going to go back and add "denial" to my bullet list...
MachIVshooter
Member
If you can't see the distinction between multiple victim shootings and mass shootings, then there's nothing to talk about. It's not a semantics game; they are two very different types of crime with very different motives and goals.
Steel Horse Rider
Member
Aragon hit the nail on the head for home grown shooters with the comment on psychotropic drug use in the US, but the press and the government/medical complex do not wish to discuss that unpleasant fact. The other killers are mostly jihadists or wanna be jihadists who seek martyrdom. Does anyone know what reward a female martyr receives in glory?????
Pretty doubtful. If that were true than we would observe that in the other first world nations that are less kind to guns, no? And in fact several incidents prove bombs are far less efficient, Columbine was supposed to be one such incident. Eric and Dylan's original plan was to use their guns to herd the student body into the cafeteria than detonate some bombs they made out of propane they had left their earlier but they malfunctioned and instead embarked on their now famous massacre.
Bombs also just by their nature don't deliver efficient means of destruction unless you use a large amount of explosives like a car totally packed with TNT or something like the Oklahoma city massacre. In small amounts you might kill a few people but their corpses tend to form a morbid shield. When you manually operate a gun you can personally ensure each victim is disposed of.
Personally I believe that the gun control lobby does have a point in that gun control probably could have prevented some of these massacres, but than again security is not the aim of our nation; it's freedom that we cherish. Practically speaking I think the best we can do is change up how our police work, we need them to be ready for rapid response. Some of the recent shooters surrendered or even committed suicide when they heard police sirens.
CCW may help to some degree but at the very least I think it's safe to say it's an unreliable solution at best.
MachIVshooter
Member
Doubtful.
It's easy to look at European nations, Australia, etc. and draw that conclusion if you look no further than their gun laws and homicide rates. But that's not the whole story. Not even close.
For one, population size and diversity. None of them come close to the USA. The much smaller and more homogenous populations, and lower percentages of impoverished, create a very different dynamic for crime.
Secondly, they have never had the gun culture and proliferation of weapons that we do. Outlawing firearms altogether in the USA would have nowhere near the effect at reducing the actual numbers of small arms in circulation that strict regulation in those nations did. And unless we actually do something about border security, stemming the flow of illicit things-guns and drugs alike-is a fantasy. While it's true that most of the firearms used in crime here were legal guns at one point, there is also no shortage of weapons that are illegally imported by gangs and cartels. Do a little research on the number of new firearms illegally imported from the Philippines and sold on the streets here.
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
Yes it is an observation, but as I said a wrong one. As is often true correlation is not the same as causation. Because most mass shooting occur during the day time it does not mean the sun is to blame.
There is no evidence that these various shooters consciously choose places with "No Gun" policies. To hold that position you'd have to have interviews, writings, etc. or other actual evidence from the majority of these shooters that they made their decision to shoot up a particular place because the location had a no guns policies, or that that policy was a major factor in their choice. But there is no such evidence. Even if one or two factored this into their thinking, that still ain't enough to be able to say that such places...
So, as bad and non-nonsensical as these "zones" are there is no direct evidence that they are magnets for mass shooters. It's not even clear if the majority of the locations where the shootings have taken place had such policies at the time.
Other factors are more important in their selection of people and places to shoot up. This is important to understand because otherwise you mistake the reasons for the shooting which are many and varied and end up unable to help end them or accurately fight the antis.
There is also no actual evidence that these zones make any difference at all in whether people bring guns into them in the first place. How many people at all pay any attention to that silliness at all is questionable. Concealed is concealed so how many carry discreetly in a theater or restaurant, etc. is not known.
tipoc
tipoc
Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,563
It makes an important difference.
The statistics we often hear today that over 300 "mass shootings" have occurred in the U.S. this year are based on compiling a number of varied incidents into one pile.
This shooting here, where a man shot his wife and two children and then himself (four people) meets the criteria for a "mass shooting" and is counted as such.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/03/man-kills-his-wife-and-2-grown-children-then-self/
Also counted is this incident in Texas in a biker gang shootout...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/18/us/texas-biker-gang-brawl-shooting/index.html
How do these fit in the same bag as deliberate acts of political terrorism or the shootings done by the mentally disabled. They do not unless they are stuffed in. It isn't a semantic difference.
It's another question, why the use of firearms is common in the U.S. But it's important, I think, to not follow the lead of the mass press and politicians and take the false figures they present as fact.
tipoc
Aragon
member
No matter how you slice it, there are too many. And yes, there are more then there used to be no matter how you define it. Suggesting there's not a problem (no matter how long it has existed) does nothing but kill the credibility of those making the claim -- and keeps the focus away from the real problems.
Last edited:
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
Like in France?
France alone has had more people killed in mass shootings in 2015 alone than the United States has had during Obama's entire presidency. And the USA is more comparable in population to all of Europe combined than to just one small country.
MachIVshooter
Member
Does that mean there's an acceptable number?
Redefining phenomena to fit a narrative. They have done the same thing with Autism, adding a dozen different disorders that used to be lumped into ADD or ADHD to the ASD spectrum. Does that mean there are more cases of these disorders?
Conversely, we have zero illegal marijuana use in CO now. Is that because marijuana use has decreased to nil, or could it be because it was legalized?
Not one person has said that homicide, whether individual, multiple or mass, isn't a problem. Where we disagree is the notion that the problem can be solved with more legislation/government control.
Aargon,
The facts don't support your belief. The rate of mass shootings is and has been much the same for a generation. We've posted the data here on THR so I'm confused by your belief otherwise in the face of the facts. The press around them certainly has gotten "louder" though, but no useful solutions are offered. The guns in CT were all legally purchased with background checks. The gun in SC was legally purchased with a background check. The guns in CA were legally purchased with background checks. Nothing short of an outright ban would have made any difference if you focus on the guns.
Look at the details of the Mother Jones database if you're not inclined to look where they've been linked here in previous threads. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...V-6uy_yeJh3X46o/pub?output=html&widget=false# Remember, the truth is in the data, not what others tell you about it.
What is different the past several years is that these high profile mass murders are dramatic and they're given more attention by the 24hr news outlets.
Last edited:
guitarguy314
Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2011
- Messages
- 302
HI everyone, sorry for disappearing. I'm studying for my theoretical dynamics final, and it's gonna be a doozy
--------------------------------------------------------------------
After reading the replies, I think I should clarify a few things.
First, the post is titled as it is because I know that on some gun forums, a question like the one I asked can be met with derision (turns out I got the derision anyway, haha). The person asking the question is usually assumed to be a gun confiscating liberal, and no serious replies show up in the thread because of this.
Second, I feel the need to restate my question to clarify exactly what it was that I was asking. Most of you got the gist, but reading back I see that I may have been a little unclear. My question, fully stated is...
Why, when America has the highest (or very near to it) rate of civilian firearm ownership in the world, do we see so many more mass shootings/shootings where several people are killed than other countries? Isn't the high rate of firearm ownership supposed to make us safer?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now in reply to a few things I've seen in the comments,
Several people have used the recent Paris attacks to point out that Paris has had more people die in mass shootings in 2015 than the US. I think this statement is a little bit murky because (although factual) it is used to imply that America is just like "everywhere else" when it comes to these shootings. Wouldn't the number be heavily skewed to the US on any other year? Both in the number of incidents and number of people wounded/killed? I'm aware that such attacks do happen elsewhere, but they don't seem to happen nearly as often as they do here.
A few people have pointed to violent video games, television shows, movies, and general moral decay. Do you really think this is really the root cause of all of these attacks? Why didn't the Clint Eastwood/Gunsmoke/Bonanza generation have the same problems? Or did they?
The whole "mass shooting definition game" is a little asinine isn't it? I understand that the media has used redefinitions in order to skew numbers, but if you have to define a mass shooting at four or five killed in order to exclude the other shootings, isn't there a little bit of a problem there?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I appreciate the good number of well informed replies, and thank you all for taking the time out to answer my question.
A few really good points that I didn't think about were the non-homogeneous nature of the US, and how big a role the "mental health" aspect plays into things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
After reading the replies, I think I should clarify a few things.
First, the post is titled as it is because I know that on some gun forums, a question like the one I asked can be met with derision (turns out I got the derision anyway, haha). The person asking the question is usually assumed to be a gun confiscating liberal, and no serious replies show up in the thread because of this.
Second, I feel the need to restate my question to clarify exactly what it was that I was asking. Most of you got the gist, but reading back I see that I may have been a little unclear. My question, fully stated is...
Why, when America has the highest (or very near to it) rate of civilian firearm ownership in the world, do we see so many more mass shootings/shootings where several people are killed than other countries? Isn't the high rate of firearm ownership supposed to make us safer?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now in reply to a few things I've seen in the comments,
Several people have used the recent Paris attacks to point out that Paris has had more people die in mass shootings in 2015 than the US. I think this statement is a little bit murky because (although factual) it is used to imply that America is just like "everywhere else" when it comes to these shootings. Wouldn't the number be heavily skewed to the US on any other year? Both in the number of incidents and number of people wounded/killed? I'm aware that such attacks do happen elsewhere, but they don't seem to happen nearly as often as they do here.
A few people have pointed to violent video games, television shows, movies, and general moral decay. Do you really think this is really the root cause of all of these attacks? Why didn't the Clint Eastwood/Gunsmoke/Bonanza generation have the same problems? Or did they?
The whole "mass shooting definition game" is a little asinine isn't it? I understand that the media has used redefinitions in order to skew numbers, but if you have to define a mass shooting at four or five killed in order to exclude the other shootings, isn't there a little bit of a problem there?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I appreciate the good number of well informed replies, and thank you all for taking the time out to answer my question.
A few really good points that I didn't think about were the non-homogeneous nature of the US, and how big a role the "mental health" aspect plays into things.
MachIVshooter
Member
While criminals often do fear armed victims, the ratio of firearms to people in this country has nothing to do with people being armed in their everyday life, let alone effective in defending themselves. There are enough guns in this country to arm 9 of 10 people, but nowhere near 90% of the population carries. In fact, it's nowhere near 9%. Closer to 4% that have CCW, and far fewer who carry daily. So, overall, the criminal still has little to fear from the armed citizen. Yes, there are places where you simply expect everyone to be armed, and many of those places have very low crime, like my county. But there are many other factors at work there.
Violent crime trends independently of gun ownership rates. That is as true when our camp makes the claim that guns prevent crime as it is when the antis postulate that guns cause crime.
No, it's not. Some groups have put numbers on it, and assigned other criteria. I say they're as wrong as VOX, which asserts nearly 100 times the figure FBI counts. A multiple firearm homicide is not necessarily a mass shooting, and a mass shooting is not necessarily a multiple homicide. The critical component of a mass shooting is the mass; 4 or 5 (or 20) specific targets murdered is not in the same category as 4 or 5 (or 20, or 50) random people shot (not necessarily killed) only because they were there.
It also has a very different psychological effect on the surviving population when it's indiscriminate. If a man kills his 4 children and his wife, it's tragic and he's a monster, but people don't develop a fear because of it. When a lunatic kills the same number in a coffee shop for no apparent reason, suddenly people have an apprehension about going to get a latte the next day. And the fact that dying in a car crash on the way there is many thousands of times more likely than being shot by a madman does nothing to abate their trepidation.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
