America-273 mass shootings in 275 days of this year

a reply to: SudoNim

So, since you're pointing to those countries as an example, do you care to offer a solution which doesn't:

- Violate the 2A
- Deny innocent people due process
- Confiscate private property

Closed for review.

Terms and Conditions of Use--Please Review

reopened......

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

Community Announcement re: Decorum
The END of Hate Speech, subtle or otherwise, on ATS

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: BlackSkinhead

Using that stat, and removing the 60% suicide rate, the death by cop, the self defense and the home invasion, we are left with 1800 murders with a firearm YTD.

That said, the website states that they pull their data from 2500 different sources. As an accountant/statistician, I have to wonder if they are balancing their results back to anything. Proving their numbers out. Because in statistics the mantra is "figures don't lie, but liars can figure".

Please scour through the statistics and let us know how many mass shootings were done with legally obtained weapons. Such as the Vegas guy. Those are the ones that need attention.

Criminals breaking the law? There's already legislation for that.

originally posted by: BlackSkinhead
According to the Gun Violence Archive website, there has been 273 mass shootings in America out of 275 days.

Last year there were more mass shootings than there were days.

So last year there were more mass shootings than days, this year there are fewer.

Wouldn't that actually mean the situation is improving?

Either way it's no bueno.

originally posted by: BlackSkinhead

originally posted by: avgguy
It's our right to own guns here, written in the constitution. A gun is a tool that you can use for good or evil. unfortunately an infinitely small minority of legal gun owners use their tools to kill other people.

That was written when single fire rifles were the norm mate not fully automatic 1000 round weapons.


And that wasn't my question. I don't want a 20 page thread about your rights because I'm very aware of them. I just want an answer to that question , please

He answered it, you just don't accept the answer.

Removing guns from law abiding citizens does not remove them from law breakers. It's against the law to murder, did that stop Paddock?

Also, there were already absolutely fully automatic weapons in 1776. The purpose of the second ammendment is to keep the civilian population as armed as the military, in so -- that they could realistically FIGHT the military in the event of Tyranny.

So it doesn't matter if there were 1,000 round drums or not back in 1776, the fact that the military has high capacity means civilians also NEED high capacity in order to stay sovereign.

Law Breakers, people who do not abide by written rules, are the ones shooting innocents. This is 2017, you can ban gun makers from producing fire arms, but you cannot stop me from building one in my shop in the back yard or 3D Printing one with no serials. If someone wants to commit murder by gun, even if there were no guns allowed to be sold on the planet, they'd just make them instead.

What happens in your universe, where guns are outlawed and no longer produced, when a person makes one in his shed? You just created a monster that can kill thousands of people with little risk of being stopped.

The bottom line is simple, while what happened in vegas is absolutely terrible -- it's still small potatoes. More people die every day from car accidents, or slipping in the shower, or being struck by lightning, or having a tree fall on them, or an alligator eating them, or a shark biting them, or prescription drug over doses, than gun violence.

So my question to you is simple, why target gun violence?

The problem is awareness and connectivity of the internet and television. One act that happens in a local place is now national news, which makes the issue seem much larger than it is. How many people die from drunk drivers yearly? Here is a clue, it's a much greater number than people who get shot in a year. Yet, you not lobby to outlaw Jack Daniels -- how come?

Guns are a non-issue and bombs are easy to make -- he could have made pipe bombs and launched them out of a potato launcher from that window and had a higher body count for A.) Much cheaper, and B.) A much higher body count. You can't stop people from accessing knowledge and science that exists, you can't take back discovery.

Part of freedom is understanding that bad things can and will happen from time to time, but understand that they still happen less than other bad things that happen with super high frequency -- like the heroin/fentanyl over doses.

Here is real truth; 33,636 die in the united states per year to gun violence. 3,287 die PER DAY in the united states in automobile accidents.

Cars kill way more than bullets do. We're talking 1.3 million a year vs 33,000 -- but you want to ban guns and not cars? Also, of all of those 1.3 million fatal car accidents per year, 95% of them are stone sober drivers.

No logic or reason in your stance or question.

It's like, watching your son die falling off a ladder, understandably, your reaction would be to hate ladders. You don't go ban them because of it.

There is no such thing as safety, there is only the perception of it. People are still murdered in comparable quantities per year in the UK as they are in the US when adjusted by population, and y'all have outlawed fire arms, so what's that mean?

That means you lost your ability to defend yourself against attackers for no tangible gain. That's called fact.

If the goal is to stop murder, than you have to eliminate the motivations for murder, not the means. You have to eliminate the ability to be poor, you have to guarantee true happiness for the population. As you know, that's impossible, so taking away peoples right to defend themselves isn't going to lower the murder rate, it's going to increase it.


You're a brit, eh?


Guns are illegal and outlawed there -- explain how this guy is running around with a shotgun just blasting people on the street. If outlawing guns stops shootings, how come it didn't work for you? Here is a clue -- because it doesn't work.

In the United States, that guy would have been shot by police in under 5 minutes. In London, the police had to literally run away. Get it yet, bruv?

The real solution, is to open carry everywhere. Then only people who are suicidal will ever commit transgression -- and even then, note, it will NOT stop suicidal people, but it will limit the damage they can cause.

Concealed Carry holders stop many "mass" shootings, including ACTUAL mass shootings. Probably a much larger percentage of mass shootings are stopped by carriers than mass shootings happen when compared to the amount of guns in the country, or the population, but those are the people you want to take the guns from?



This literally happens with as much frequency as mass shootings do. For you see -- if a concealed carrier ends a would be mass shooter before he hits anyone, he wasn't a mass shooter. You don't hear about these because they were prevented.

a reply to: BlackSkinhead

catalyst.nejm.org...
700 Americans die each day from medical errors, making it the third leading cause of death in the US.
fortune.com...
40,000 people died in car crashes in the US last year...
www.npr.org...
Just under 1 million Americans are murdered by abortion each year...

The hyperbolic fear mongering over firearms is choking on gnats while we are expected to eat camels whole. It's ridiculous. You're in the UK, worry about UK issues and leave America to we Americans, please.

originally posted by: scojak

originally posted by: BlackSkinhead
According to the Gun Violence Archive website, there has been 273 mass shootings in America out of 275 days.

Last year there were more mass shootings than there were days.

So last year there were more mass shootings than days, this year there are fewer.

Wouldn't that actually mean the situation is improving?

Either way it's no bueno.

What? That flimsy definition is flimsy. 4 people is the standard? 273*4=1,092. So by the minimum definition, that's 1,092 people out of 326,766,748 people. It's so rare, it's rarer than von Hippel-Lindau disease. You can make it sound crazy scary when you say 273 is almost one per day!!!

Except it's not, and even if it were, there are only 365 days vs 326,766,748 people living those same days. I.E. Even though 273 out of 365 makes it seem common, it's NOT common at all. It is totally bueno. In fact, it's so rare, it's excellent. Now consider how many guns are in the country? More than 300,000,000 guns in the united states. How many mass shootings? 273. That means 0.000001%[probably a lot more zeros] of guns are involved in mass shootings. INCREDIBLY rare. It's almost as close to non existent as is actually possible -- it basically doesn't ever happen, but when it does happen, everyone hears about it non-stop for months on end making you THINK it's common, when it's so rare, it's almost non-existent.



Legal Carriers save lives daily, this is just one of endless examples. That could have easily been a "mass" shooting and was prevented. That man could have potentially saved every innocent in that barber shop. Gun Control takes HIS gun away, not the robbers.

That said, NOTHING will prevent a concealed and entrenched sniper from shooting upon a crowd, there is no legislation to draft because nothing can stop that from happening. The dude in vegas got an elevated and concealed position from a range, had cameras watching his back for the if and when he was found. This was not just an "I snapped" case, this dude put thought into how to buy himself time to cause as much damage as possible.

Chances are, he would have had a higher body count if he just walked into the crowd with two 100 round mags, but because we have concealed carry, he probably would have been shot in a much smaller period of time than 12 minutes.

It's always people who have no education about gun violence that want to take guns. It's always people who have no self defense training that want to take guns. It's always people who need other people to protect them, that want to take guns. Why do you think that is? Here is a clue, it's because they have no idea what they are talking about, they are submitting to an emotion even though realistically, submitting to that emotion puts them in greater danger.

Do you know, that in real life, there is no practical non armed defense for a knife attack? Do you know what the only practical defense is? Distance and a ranged weapon. And for everyone who spouts off about the 21 foot rule, you're wrong. The Tueller drill or the 21 foot rule only applies to people with no real fire arm training.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Please scour through the statistics and let us know how many mass shootings were done with legally obtained weapons. Such as the Vegas guy. Those are the ones that need attention.

Criminals breaking the law? There's already legislation for that.

What? Paddock was a criminal and he broke all of the laws legislated to prevent him from being a criminal. Even if guns were restricted, he would have bought them from the black market or stole an identity, or made his own. Guns don't need to be bought, they are incredibly simple to make. If guns were made illegal, illegal gun smiths would become super rich by making untracable weapons of the same quality as high end military grade weapons. Belts, full auto, using known platforms like the AK or AR or Glock... like, if you can build anything out of metal, you can build a gun.

You see your dilemma yet? Either everyone is a criminal and loses their freedom, or free people can use that freedom to become a criminal.

I'd rather not be treated like a criminal, I happen to like being a citizen, not a subject or an inmate -- also, look at prison. How often do people get murdered IN what should be the safest place on the earth? With more frequency than mass shootings. Why? Because people kill people, not weapons. You can kill someone with a newspaper. Yes, a NEWS PAPER can be a deadly blunt force weapon. You don't even need something sharp, and realistically, if you get hit first by any weapon, you lost almost every time.

a reply to: SRPrime

Lol, wow you went on a rampage with that one. Literally all I said is that if a bad thing happens less often than it did the prior year, the situation would be improving, by definition. Then I mentioned that mass shootings are not a good thing.

Somehow you decided based on two benign statements and a question that I was speaking against a dozen other topics. Lay off the coffee pal.

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
a reply to: SudoNim

So, since you're pointing to those countries as an example, do you care to offer a solution which doesn't:

- Violate the 2A
- Deny innocent people due process
- Confiscate private property

- Don't care if it violates the 2a... get over it. Think for yourself.
- Are innocent people due everything?
- If its illegal it ain't your property.

I am not anti-gun, we have guns ourselves. I usually try to stay out of these debates but there is one argument commonly used which I always want to ask about. I've got to someday, might as well be today!

The "bad guys vs. good guys" thing - the law breakers will get guns no matter what is a valid assertion. When you are talking about people involved in criminal activity already.

But over and over, we see instances of people who were NOT previously criminals end up doing mass shootings. Instead, they have psychological problems. Mentally ill.

The bad guy/good guy line does not so easily apply there. Or, the question could be - does lack of gun control make bad guys out of good guys?

(Personally I don't like using the polarizing terminology, but if it aids in communication, I'll use whatever the listener understands and uses.)

When a mentally ill person has weapons easily available, perhaps they do things they normally wouldn't otherwise?

When people speak out against controlling who can buy a gun or not, I suddenly get suspicious - if you don't want people with a history of mental illness, depression, irresponsability and lack of discipline to be denied guns, is that possiby because you yourself are such a person?
Sorry, but you must see how that connection could be made in mind...

And though I do see that in some situations (not ones like the Mandalay Bay shooting) having some armed civilians in the area could save your life,
Wouldn't you feel better knowing it is the responsible, mentally balanced, intelligent ones that will be in that role?

originally posted by: Bluesma

When people speak out against controlling who can buy a gun or not, I suddenly get suspicious - if you don't want people with a history of mental illness, depression, irresponsability and lack of discipline to be denied guns, is that possiby because you yourself are such a person?
Sorry, but you must see how that connection could be made in mind...

A very good point.

These people clearly don't care about safety of themselves, their family or the state of their country. They are just scared of losing their guns because it makes them feel "American".

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: Bluesma

When people speak out against controlling who can buy a gun or not, I suddenly get suspicious - if you don't want people with a history of mental illness, depression, irresponsability and lack of discipline to be denied guns, is that possiby because you yourself are such a person?
Sorry, but you must see how that connection could be made in mind...

A very good point.

These people clearly don't care about safety of themselves, their family or the state of their country. They are just scared of losing their guns because it makes them feel "American".

I don't feel so sure of that (though I know the things they say can give that impression).
As an American myself, I perceive that our system provides a constant low level anxiety over survival. In my time there (almost thirty years ago) this was simply because you could lose your job or business in a moment (a bad accident requiring long term hospitalization or surgery, for example...) and have your roof over your head or your food disappear.
We were so used to living with that fear, we were barely aware that is what that deep buzzing was.

Since then it has grown to a loud rumble, with rising terrorism and a media that keeps us scared to death.
Fear is more likely the underlying attachment to guns. They symbolize our distrust of those in power, of our own government and enforcement, of each other.

My thought here though is - despite my compassion for that, it seems we really should feel dedicated to letting only those who are dealing with that fear responsibly and with mental balance be the "protectors".

originally posted by: SudoNim
- Don't care if it violates the 2a... get over it. Think for yourself.
- Are innocent people due everything?
- If its illegal it ain't your property.

- So you don't care about violating peoples inalienable rights, so long as *you* agree with it
- Because I recognise that I have an inalienable right to self defense and bear arms, the implication is that I can't think for myself?
- The presumption in this country is that the individual is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of my peers, I am considered innocent of any crime. So is everybody else. Point me to a crime committed and due process followed that allows confiscation of everyone's firearms.
- So it's okay for the government to declare any private property illegal, make people criminals at the stroke of a pen, and remove said property? Think about the implications of that.

originally posted by: cynicalheathen

originally posted by: SudoNim
- Don't care if it violates the 2a... get over it. Think for yourself.
- Are innocent people due everything?
- If its illegal it ain't your property.

- So you don't care about violating peoples inalienable rights, so long as *you* agree with it

What makes you think they are "inalienable"?

[quotte]- Because I recognise that I have an inalienable right to self defense and bear arms, the implication is that I can't think for myself?

Your rights? Your rights have changed numerous times over the last 100 years quit getting hung up on it.

- The presumption in this country is that the individual is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of my peers, I am considered innocent of any crime. So is everybody else. Point me to a crime committed and due process followed that allows confiscation of everyone's firearms.

This is moronic. That's why it needs be a law. Thats how things become a crime? Did you seriously just ask this. If certain gun laws do pass and you do not follow them you become a criminal. Just like if you don't follow current gun control laws you become a criminal.

- So it's okay for the government to declare any private property illegal, make people criminals at the stroke of a pen, and remove said property? Think about the implications of that.

They did it before, in fact you currently hiding behind the laws they made 100 years ago. And you would only be a criminal if you don't comply.

The original meaning of the 2nd amendment wasn't to guarantee all citizens the right to own guns, the NRA has changed American's perspective on it. But now suddenly people want to question it again and you throw a fit.

Stop hiding behind laws and amendments, allow yourself to question whether they are the best they can be rather than blindly accept what a government of 100 years ago told you is best. Stop being a sheep and think for yourself.

originally posted by: SudoNimWhat makes you think they are "inalienable"?

Because I own myself, and my right to defend myself cannot be given up or taken. It can be *violated*, but that is not the same thing.

- inalienable

"Incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred"

Your rights? Your rights have changed numerous times over the last 100 years quit getting hung up on it.

Rights don't change. Governments may violate or infringe them, but they don't change.

This is moronic. That's why it needs be a law. Thats how things become a crime? Did you seriously just ask this. If certain gun laws do pass and you do not follow them you become a criminal. Just like if you don't follow current gun control laws you become a criminal.

There is a difference in lawful and legal. The government could make a law that says "All ATS users with a username of SudoNim have to report to prison immediately." You gonna follow that law?

If bump fire stocks are banned, am I suddenly a criminal? Because I can do the exact same thing with my fingers. We banning fingers next?

They did it before, in fact you currently hiding behind the laws they made 100 years ago. And you would only be a criminal if you don't comply.

What 100 year law am I hiding behind?

The original meaning of the 2nd amendment wasn't to guarantee all citizens the right to own guns, the NRA has changed American's perspective on it.

Citation needed. I suggest you read the founding documents. The Founding Fathers would disagree. And besides, the Constitution doesn't grant my rights, it merely enumerates them. That's right, Rights predate the U.S. Constitution.

NRA hasn't done jack for me. I consider them to be just as bad as politicians. I've only given them money once, and it was only because the gun club I was a member of at the time required it.

But now suddenly people want to question it again and you throw a fit.

Stop hiding behind laws and amendments, allow yourself to question whether they are the best they can be rather than blindly accept what a government of 100 years ago told you is best. Stop being a sheep and think for yourself.

Again, who's hiding? The Amendment is for the government, not me. And psst, you may want to check those numbers, the U.S. is a little older than 100...

Anyone else remember when the definition of a mass shooting was somewhat higher than 4 people shot.

quick google shows the FBI says a mass shooting event is when 4 or more people are killed, not just injured.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Please scour through the statistics and let us know how many mass shootings were done with legally obtained weapons. Such as the Vegas guy. Those are the ones that need attention.

Criminals breaking the law? There's already legislation for that.

I believe they are attempting to change that, we are now seeing threads pop up talking about how prescription medicine even downers and muscle relaxants are dangerous and cause people to flip out...

No need to address the real issues when people actively look for a fall guy to take the blame.

a reply to: cynicalheathen

The Founding Fathers would disagree.

Are there any differences between the time that the founding fathers wrote the constitution and now ?