"So far in 2015, we’ve had 274 days and 294 mass shootings"

a reply to: Harte

Do you see the number of shootings in the top 5??

1 2 1 2 2.... what is your point with that chart?

So if some of the mass shootings on that list are considered mass shootings does that mean gun control supporters who claim Australia has not had a mass shooting since they passed stricter gun control are wrong (a kid killed 2 people and injured 5, another guy killed 3 and injured another 3 people, a husband killed his wife and their 3 children about a year ago, and then that Sydney terrorist attack where the guy killed 1 person/2 innocent people died total one because of the police bullets and 4 people were hurt by gunfire)?

a reply to: nancyliedersdeaddog

More mistaken then wrong.

I think most people say it massively reduced it.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: nancyliedersdeaddog

More mistaken then wrong.

I think most people say it massively reduced it.

The mass shootings in Australia was already a very small number something like 6 or 7 (including the port Arthur shooting) between early 1980's until 96. The news gun laws didn't even drop the gun homicide rate and total gun homicides very much either which a gun control reporter of the Washington Post even admitted.

How many times have guns saved a persons life. The media loves to ignore that number. What about all the guns that have protected females from being raped or worse murdered. All you anti gun people, are you willing to see number of rapes and home break-in's go way up, all because you don't want people to be able to protect themselves.

All the gun grabs should know if it ever came time for police to go door to door to confiscate firearms, you will see them quitting by the thousands. Dead people don't need money, the police know this.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Harte

Do you see the number of shootings in the top 5??

1 2 1 2 2.... what is your point with that chart?

So, per capita doesn't count?

Well, obviously it wouldn't count if you are trying to buttress a false argument in order to support a malformed opinion.

Harte

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: eugenic

Yep - America certainly has a cultural and mental health issue it needs to deal with because lots of countries have gun rights for citizens but only the US experiences this type of event on a reoccurring basis.

So, it has very little, if anything at all, to do with guns.

While I agree for the most part, I think that it also has to do with the high population and vast expanse of the U.S. compared to most other countries. Plus, our media is much more sensationalist than many other countries' as well, so it get it the spotlight faster and on a broader scale.

I could be wrong, but you know, comparing our country to countries of similar gun laws, but with dramatically smaller land and population mass is not exactly a fair or even logical comparison. Like I've said before on other posts, I could piece together enough towns and land mass in the U.S. to equal most countries in the world, and what I piece together will not have seen mass shootings or much gun violence ever. But I could also group together St. Louis and Detroit and many other cesspools of gun violence and call that representational of the U.S. as a whole, and we'd have a violent-crime rater similar to Central American countries.

I agree that this has very little to do with guns, but I also think that comparing us to other, relatively tiny nations, and using that as a basis to form an argument doesn't work.

Yes, where gun violence is high, there is a cultural problem (but it's not an American culture, it's an urban-area culture) and where mass shootings are concerned, there is a mental-health (or medication for that issue) problem. I do agree that those are the crux of the issue, I just abhor the use of country comparisons in order to form an argument...and I don't think that you've done enough research, because there are many--MANY--other nations with higher violent crime rates than the U.S.

this thread can be summed up (in my opinion) as....the people that have the power to change it, don't care.

a reply to: jimmyx

I agree I mean for some reason many on the left wont even let us have a debate about things like a nation wide mental health database, limiting urban crime, stop and frisk, more cops, better funding for the police/justice system, limits on the 4th amendment, new task force, Giuliani crime policies which helped clean up new york/drop the crime rate at much higher rate than the rest of the country, new programs to combat gang funding, ect which would all help limit the number of gun homicides and even violent crime.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: rockintitz

I never once strayed from my belief in the success of an armed populace.

Judge me without knowing me?

Your entire stance in this debate appears to be 'I'm not like that'.

America is like that. You are just one individual. And since you are American, you are not competent to judge this issue. It's far too emotionally and politically loaded an issue for any American to evaluate it properly.

Look at this typically American response, from a post below yours:


Would you say that the person who wrote that rubbish was fit to be entrusted with a firearm?

And YOU are not American, so how the heck can you think you are in any position to evaluate it properly? You are not!

I guess now the definition for mass shooting has changed so that if multiple people are shot even though no one died it can be labeled a mass shooting. This reminds me of the Mom's demand action group using a chart that included things like suicides, shootings near a school, and even things that happen after school hours as "school shootings" and tried to give the impression that all the events they listed were similar to Sandy Hook.