A Statistic to Consider...

An American is 185 times more likely to be killed by gun violence then they are by a Terrorist Act.

I heard this statistic from Colonel Morris Davis (ret) the former lead prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay detention camp during a discussion with Jeremy Scahill on the podcast Intercepted.

theintercept.com...

This statistic was mentioned during a conversation about the Bodhi Berdahl case:

The former chief prosecutor at Guantánamo Bay prison blasts Trump over his repeated interference in the case of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl and the recent terror attack in New York. Col. Morris Davis fought the Bush administration, was fired under Obama, and now shares his views of the history and presidents of the past 17 years.

This episode also contains topical discussions with other experts:

Saudi Arabia is in the midst of a political purge within the ranks of the royal family. This week on Intercepted: Trump doubles down on his support for the ruling faction in the House of Saud as its genocidal war in Yemen rages on and its public listing of oil company Saudi Aramco could be worth $2 trillion. Rep. Ro Khanna tells us that he is now calling for a complete end to all U.S. military assistance to Saudi Arabia. He also discusses the horrendous catastrophe in Yemen, charges of Russian interference in the U.S. election, and the state of the Democratic Party.

and what I found most thoughtful and helpful:

As the Paradise Papers rock the world of the rich and the elite who use off shore banks and law firms, we get analysis from Nomi Prins, a former managing director of Goldman Sachs. Prins also lays out the bottom line on the GOP tax plan.

And Jeremy offers a commentary on the value of “whataboutism.”

I found the statistic one that is ignored by many. We spend Trillions on Terrorism (for and against) but pennies on sane gun regulation here at home. That's insane.

Also Nomi Prins does a good job of explaining the proposed republican 'tax reform plan' in some detail. It's worth listening to.

PS - for those you will reject this podcast out of hand and refuse to listen because it's labeled left - I want you to know that Mr. Scahill is no sychophant to either side or any ideology except perhaps the well-being of the working class. He calls out hypocracy on all sides and lays out the facts clearly - he always interview EXPERTS in their fields not pundits and PR flunkies.

What happens when the terrorist act *is* gun violence?

An American is 185 times more likely to be killed by gun violence then they are by a Terrorist Act.

Sure if you ignore San Bernadino,Orlando,Fort Hood where terrorists used GUNZ.

originally posted by: neo96

An American is 185 times more likely to be killed by gun violence then they are by a Terrorist Act.

Sure if you ignore San Bernadino,Orlando,Fort Hood where terrorists used GUNZ.

Those don't count unless they were committed by white males.

And since we have truck attacks now. That was Truck violence.

Since the Boston Marathon bombing used pressure cookers. That was pressure cooker violence.

And 9-11 used box cutters so that was box cutter violence.

Meh.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

I found the statistic one that is ignored by many. We spend Trillions on Terrorism (for and against) but pennies on sane gun regulation here at home. That's insane.

Out of curiosity, if you could spend a billion dollars on "sane gun regulation", exactly how would the money be spent? Who would need to be paid for "sane gun regulation?" What would need to be bought?

a reply to: FyreByrd

Right, but statistics need to be put in the correct context No?

How many of these shootings were between two or more parties engaging in other illegal activities?

I just feel that a clear understanding of who is using said guns is important context. Did your numbers count self defense shootings? Surly they count gang banging drug dealings and extortion...

Oddly enough, not a single member of the NRA has committed a criminal shooting in 51 years...Perhaps much more. How does that effect your opinion?

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Giving a goodly portion of that billion to me, would be a fine start

Guns are a right here, and according to the constitution it can't be infringed upon.

If you could, could you cite the statistic on likelihood of being killed by medical malpractice vs guns?

a reply to: caterpillage

250,000+ per year

hub.jhu.edu...

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: FyreByrd

I found the statistic one that is ignored by many. We spend Trillions on Terrorism (for and against) but pennies on sane gun regulation here at home. That's insane.

Out of curiosity, if you could spend a billion dollars on "sane gun regulation", exactly how would the money be spent? Who would need to be paid for "sane gun regulation?" What would need to be bought?

I'd spend the money for people's time - legislators, staff, researchers, activists on both sides, public town halls, - just the types of things that are supposed to go into determining rational legislation and regulation on any subject.

I don't know anyone who wants to take away sporting weapons from sportsment. But weapons that are only used for killing people should not be easier to get then a car or driver's license. I'd spend money on requisite gun saftey training and testing - like we require of other classes of people for continuing licensure.

And by definition a "Terrorist Act" is any act (which any type of weapon including vehicles) INTENDED to incite terror for political ends.

a reply to: FyreByrd

what makes you think that guns are easier to get than a drivers license?

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: FyreByrd


Oddly enough, not a single member of the NRA has committed a criminal shooting in 51 years...Perhaps much more. How does that effect your opinion?

Now that's an interesting statistic.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Shall not be infringed upon...I think is the wording attached to the 2nd amendment. So unless you think spending a billion on getting an amendment passed is worth it...I don't see the point.

a reply to: Mach2

truly, and it has a source, mind you I misstated its mass shootings IE 4 persons or more regarding my source:

Based on the arbitrary definition of a shooting involving at least four deaths, there had been 130 mass shootings in the United States as of June 6, 2017, going back over the last 51 years. (This does not include gang killings, killings that began as other crimes such as robberies, and killings that involved only the shooter's family.)

www.quora.com... y-owned-by-the-shooters

Heres another interesting bit of math regarding the topic:

Cliff Gilley, Studied Sociology (Criminology / Social Psychology) at the UW as an undergrad. Answered Apr 16, 2012 I'll give this a shot...using Wikipedia data for the following statistics. The homicide rate in the US in 2010 was 4.8:100,000 There are 4.3 million members of the NRA. On average, this would mean that there were 206.4 murders for the total 4.3 million NRA members (4.8 * 43) : (43 * 100,000). Which counts down to 0.0000048 murders per NRA member. Now, if you actually mean the number of murders committed by NRA members, I don't know that you'll be able to actually track down that data publicly - it's not like that's a common question asked of murder suspects, nor something that's tracked by the FBI.

BlueJacket because: eta

a reply to: neo96

You forgot the mass transit vehicle violence from the planes too.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: FyreByrd

Right, but statistics need to be put in the correct context No?

Oddly enough, not a single member of the NRA has committed a criminal shooting in 51 years...Perhaps much more. How does that effect your opinion?

Right, but statistics need to be put in the correct context, No?

I believe it’s estimated that somewhere around 100 million Americans own guns. (Myself included)

I also believe that the NRA has a current membership of about 5 million. (Don’t know about 51yrs ago)

I am NOT a member of the NRA and I don’t know what reasoning they may attribute to their membership’s clean criminal record, but I can tell you that taken in the proper context, it’s not as great as you may think.

I for one, am not that impressed by the fact that 5% of gun owning Americans haven’t used one to commit a crime, regardless of whether or not they all belong to the same club.

a reply to: Flatfish

Well fair enough, but again its the OP I am trying to show that different segments of gun owners, as well as illegal gun owners fall into said stats, but not for the same reasons. Context, the NRA mass shooting context is an EXAMPLE

So we're more secure from terrorism than other countries... so what? We're probably 4000% less likely to get ebola than someone in Africa. What does that mean?