It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

More people murdered with fire than in mass shootings

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   
www.breitbart.com...

According to FBI crime statistics and the bureau's recent study on "active shooter" incidents (ACIs) in the US, far more people are murdered with fire than are killed in mass shootings.

Moreover, the number of people killed each year with "personal weapons," such as "feet" and "fists," nearly eclipses the number of people killed in mass shootings.

On September 24, the FBI released their study on ACIs showing 418 deaths in mass shootings--or "mass killings"--from 2000 to 2013. On paper, that works out to an average of 29.8 murders in mass shootings each year for those 14 years. But FBI crime stats for murder by other means show that the gap between those killed in mass shootings and those killed with more rudimentary weapons is staggering.
For example, the stats show 580 murders committed with fire from 2006 through 2011 alone. That's 162 more murders by fire in six years than the total number of murders via mass shooters for the 14-year period studied by the FBI.

Moreover, there were 4,873 murders committed with "personal weapons" like "feet" and "fists" and 10,769 murders committed with "knives and cutting instruments" from 2006 through 2011 alone. That is an average of 812 persons killed each of those years with weapons like "feet" and "fists" and an average of 1,794.8 stabbed to death annually during that same period.

But The New York Times' headline on September 24 read: "FBI Confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000."

Fire




posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Your point?

Still doesn't change the fact that mass shootings are picking up.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Murder is murder.
It doesn't matter what the method is.
Trying to say "Well, guns kill fewer people, so that's okay." Isn't even an argument. It's reaching. And too many people buy into the weapon and ammo manufacturers paranoia group, you know them as the NRA, every election cycle and try to get more of your money when they make plenty already without the campaign of fear of your neighbors, the Pakistani who runs the gas station down the street, demmycrats...

Rhetoric is rhetoric.
Heart disease kills more than both.

And?



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
Your point?

Still doesn't change the fact that mass shootings are picking up.


The point should be clear. Stop screwing with my/our right to own certain or any firearms. The big black rifles are not the threat. Screwed up people and society is.
Fire



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: FirePiston

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
Your point?

Still doesn't change the fact that mass shootings are picking up.


The point should be clear. Stop screwing with my/our right to own certain or any firearms. The big black rifles are not the threat. Screwed up people and society is.
Fire


Of course the problem isn't guns..it is the fact that mentally ill people have access to guns that is the issue.

Gunners don't want to have to go through a mental health exam because they maybe put on a "list".

So if gunners keep fighting this..then mentally ill people will continue to have access to guns.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Wants the freedom to live their own lives however they see fit. *thinks guns should be confiscated*

Yep, that's typical suburban/city Americans for you. The dangerous mugger with a gun proved to me people can't be safe and responsible gun owners. Oh really? As opposed to the guy who hunts or lives in a part of the country where police and all help is over half an hour away?

Sex has killed millions if not billions through STD's. Chastity belts for all I suppose.

Guns are one of the last defenses the citizens have. They are peanuts and tin trinkets compared to what TPTB can and will use on the public but they're defenses nevertheless. If you think voicing your opinion is hard enough now, try voicing it when your defenses and all rights are gone.

I lived in an area where the cops would take over half an hour to reach you. Rural, couldn't even hear the neighbors. Before I moved a serial rapist decided to prove his machismo in a slightly more populated area south of us. Make a long story short, the guy ended up being shot by a citizen in the back with a shotgun, murder I know. However, a woman was quoted in the news as saying I'm buying a shotgun today.

A criminal out to misuse a gun won't hesitate to kill you, do you really think a government misusing the same guns wouldn't do it to citizens who are unarmed?

OP: We must ban fire. It's absolute selfishness to have fire *sarcasm*



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   
lol, since when is brietbart a reliable source?

they're worse than huffington post when it comes to objectivity.
edit on 2-10-2014 by NonsensicalUserName because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: FirePiston

rifles are not a threat.

this is true.

now handguns on the other hand, should be focused on more, in my opinion, as I think they're more commonly used by criminals for a number of reasons.

frankly I'm for intelligent systems, I do not think we have a fundamental right to bear arms as citizens, but the supreme court disagrees with me currently. just as it disagrees with the perception that said right is unlimited.

if we had a swiss-style government, with a swiss-style army(conscription based well-armed well-trained militia, ultimately under the authority of the elected government), I'd think things would be a lot more sensible. But that's just my opinion.
If we were like France, which has a "tier-based" system (quite necessary after ww2 left a bunch of tanks, machine guns, etc. all over the place), a strong culture of gun-enthusiasts who recognize firearm ownership as a hobby.

frankly I think guns are used as a divisive wedge to divide the politically minded populous.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: FirePiston
www.breitbart.com...

According to FBI crime statistics and the bureau's recent study on "active shooter" incidents (ACIs) in the US, far more people are murdered with fire than are killed in mass shootings.
Yeah when 26 people are killed and you report it as zero, that tends to skew the statistics, don't you think?

FBI publishes crime report showing "0" deaths occurred in Newtown in 2012



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Didn't the local LE ask them not to include the Newtown victims?

How many gun victims are killed by illegal gun owners as opposed to legal owners? Culture has surrounded firearms with an air of rebellion, authority, tough, etc when in the past it was another tool around the house.

Start reporting and exploiting the cases where someone's used them illegally while obscuring history. Pull on people's heartstrings and make them feel sympathetic to the victims, frightened for their own safety. Willing to allow legislation to infringe on their rights.

Divide and conquer. Frighten them and you can coddle them in false security. It's such a big show.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 07:29 PM
link   
how british shootings compare.


Thursday 09 January 2014 UK
Trigger happy Britain? How police shootings compare

After the fatal shooting of Mark Duggan by police is deemed lawful by a jury, Channel 4 News looks at the use of guns by UK police - and whether it's more than in other police forces around the world.
After the fatal shooting of Mark Duggan by police is deemed lawful by a jury, Channel 4 News looks the use of guns by British police - and whether it's more than police forces around the world.

In Britain, we're keen to hold on to our nostalgic image of the bobby on the beat – the friendly neighbourhood copper who's known to the community, feared by criminals and on hand to help when needed.

But it's a far cry from the demands of modern policing, and from scenes at the high court on Wednesday, after an inquest ruled the shooting dead of 29-year-old Mark Duggan was lawful.

Met Police Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley was drowned out by angry crowds outside the high court, and the Duggan family say they will be appealing the jury's decision.

The Duggan case rested on whether the jury believed the police officer's account of events: that he only opened fire because he thought that the 29-year-old had a gun in his hand and was prepared to use it.

The killing of Mark Duggan is cited as one of the sparks for the 2011 riots, in which five people died and shops were burned to the ground, and anger with police over the shooting was palpable.

Other notable deaths at the hands of police include that of Jean Charles de Menezes, who was shot in 2005 after being mistaken for a terrorist, and Ian Tomlinson, the newspaper vendor who was struck by a police officer during a protest in 2009, and later collapsed and died.

But how common is it for British to police to open fire?

In short – very rare. Police officers in England and Wales opened fire just five times for the year 2011/12. Out of these incidents, two people were killed, including Duggan.

In the four years to 2012, armed officers officers opened fire 18 times - nine fatally. No-one was shot dead by police in 2012/13.

The two fatalities in 2011/12 emerged from 12,550 operations during the same period, in which firearms officers were on the scene and had been given authorisation to open fire, even though they did not, according to the latest Home Office stats.

The authorisation factor is important, because this is where British police differ to most of the rest of the world. Aside from Ireland, all major police forces in Europe routinely carry firearms, along with the US, Canada and Australia. New Zealand is another exception.

That does not mean that firearms officers are not called out onto the streets frequently – just that authorised firearms officers (AFOs) are specially trained and that the decision made to deploy them is made by an inspector or someone even more senior. Since 2004, the use of tasers has been preferred in official policy – again, only by trained officers.

When an officer does open fire, there’s an immediate investigation, with the IPCC involved. Some families of victims of police shootings, including the Duggan family, have claimed that the police officers involved are in fact treated with a lighter touch by investigators, including the IPCC – and the law. Something that the accused passionately dispute.

"The officers are subject to immense scrutiny and pressure is placed on them and their colleagues on how they explain it,” said Mark Williams, chairman of the PFOA. “The bottom line is, everything they did has to be justified by law.”

And to highlight how rare it is for a British police officer to actually open fire, Mr Williams told Channel 4 News: "I carried a firearm for five years in London, and I never had to fire it. Actually firing a weapon is very rare. The vast majority of them have never fired a weapon.

"No firearms officer wants to shoot someone. It’s a last resort."

He argues that British police officers have the best firearms training in Europe, precisely because the force is unarmed as a matter of course.
The wider picture

It is difficult to separate the number of police shootings from the use of firearms in the society that they're operating in: in a country where gun crime is rife and gun ownership laws more relaxed, police are more likely to be called to use their own firearms.

In the US for example, 410 people were killed by police officers in 2012: that's about 0.00013 per cent of the US population, compared to 0.0000035 per cent in the UK.

But the US has over four times as many homicides as the UK, according to the latest UN statistics, and there is a far stronger culture of gun ownership across the Atlantic.

Another country where police have been criticised for fatal shootings is South Africa, which is notorious for high rates of murder, assault and murder. Just last year, over 30 people died when police opened fire on miners who were on strike – an incident now known as the Marikana massacre.

A much-cited report from the Institute for Security Studies in Pretoria found that police had shot dead 556 people in 2008/2009, the highest number in 12 years, and double the numbers four years ago.

That is 0.001 per cent of the population – far higher than the UK and the US.

To put this in context, the homicide rate in South Africa is also startling: 30.9 per 100,000 of population, compared to one, for the same number of people in England, and 4.7 in the US.

For a perhaps fairer comparison with the UK, Sweden has a more similar rate of homicide to the UK – 0.9 per 100,000 of the population. And its rate of police shooting is around the same: in the 18 years to July 2013, 18 people were shot dead by Swedish police.
The verdict

Police use of firearms – fatal or otherwise - is just one measure of police behaviour out of many. The increasing use of tasers, for example, comes with its own issues and the IPCC is investigating 12 taser-related incidents, including three fatalities.

Death in police custody is another factor measured by the IPCC – there were 15 fatalities in the year 2012/13. And Channel 4 News has reported on the use of restraining belts on detainees’ faces, by three police forces.

It is also worth noting that Home Office figures are for England and Wales only. In Northern Ireland, 30 civilian deaths at the hands of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) were recorded during the period known as "the Troubles" alone – a significant number for an area with a population of just 1.8 million.

But in terms of using firearms - and using them fatally - the figures suggest that British police are reluctant to open fire.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

originally posted by: FirePiston

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
Your point?

Still doesn't change the fact that mass shootings are picking up.


The point should be clear. Stop screwing with my/our right to own certain or any firearms. The big black rifles are not the threat. Screwed up people and society is.
Fire


Of course the problem isn't guns..it is the fact that mentally ill people have access to guns that is the issue.

Gunners don't want to have to go through a mental health exam because they maybe put on a "list".

So if gunners keep fighting this..then mentally ill people will continue to have access to guns.


So let's take them away from everyone to keep mentally ill people from having access?

How do you plan to do that with knives, fire, cars, water, baseball bats, etc?

People shouldn't have to go through a mental health exam to own anything. A good start would be to effectively limit access by people who are already proclaimed mentally ill. That particular angle doesn't win votes so it won't be pushed by politicians.



posted on Oct, 2 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Didn't the local LE ask them not to include the Newtown victims?
I am not sure but even if they did, what is the FBI publishing? A list of shootings or a wish list of local populations on what they'd like their numbers to be? If it's the latter, what basis does any citation of the false statistics have? Last I heard the FBI was looking into why they didn't include the actual numbers, not sure if they ever came out with an answer on that yet or not. Even if the answer was "because they asked us to lie", I'm not sure that's really a great answer.


originally posted by: Answer
People shouldn't have to go through a mental health exam to own anything.
And they don't have to, do they?


A good start would be to effectively limit access by people who are already proclaimed mentally ill. That particular angle doesn't win votes so it won't be pushed by politicians.
And you do that with background checks to see if the buyer has been institutionalized for mental illness. Gun advocates would rather not have to fuss with background checks like that either, but there are people pushing for more/better background checks, aren't there?



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 05:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Answer
So let's take them away from everyone to keep mentally ill people from having access?


No, only people deemed a risk to the safety of others by owning one should be banned.


How do you plan to do that with knives, fire, cars, water, baseball bats, etc?


You are missing the point. Guns are probably the easiest method (besides a bomb) to kill multiple people in a short duration of time. This makes them very dangerous in the wrong hands. Just because you cannot limit everything does NOT mean you shouldn't limit anything.


People shouldn't have to go through a mental health exam to own anything. A good start would be to effectively limit access by people who are already proclaimed mentally ill. That particular angle doesn't win votes so it won't be pushed by politicians.


Um, yes they should - especially something that can be used to cause the death of multiple people in a short duration of time. Prevention is far more effective than a cure.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join