Challenge to those in favor of more gun control.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Any idea why mass causality shootings just happened to drop during the ban?

I didn't say there was zero fluctuation, I said there was little to no statistical impact. If you look at the years leading up to the ban, there weren't that many incidents to begin with, and there weren't that many casualties to begin with.

In the 12 years leading up to the ban, there were two years with zero incidents. There were seven years that totaled more than 20 casualties. In the ten years the ban was in place, there were zero years with no incidents at all, and the biggest school shooting in history (until VT, which was done with two handguns and thus wouldn't have been stopped by the AWB anyway) took place squarely in the middle of the ban. That was in the year following the second biggest school shooting up to that point.

So...yes, there was a small, statistically insignificant change in incidents, but the ban sure as hell wasn't the cure people try to make it out to be.

I'm not making it out to be a cure-all. Was the UT Tower shooting not a greater (casualty) event then Columbine.

I'm not the best at math, but I'm pretty positive 1966 isn't in the "twelve years leading up to the ban."

I don't think you're bad at math, but your comprehension may be lacking.

YOU said "In the ten years the ban was in place, there were zero years with no incidents at all, and the biggest school shooting in history (until VT, which was done with two handguns and thus wouldn't have been stopped by the AWB anyway)" implying Columbine was the biggest school shooting in history up to that point.

So either Charles Whitman didn't shoot those people on Guadalupe from the UT Tower, or the University of Texas isn't a school.

I was more just pointing out that Columbine was not the biggest school shooting up to that point in history. Your statement didn't "add" up (bad math pun).

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: DBCowboy

Because when you ban guns, magically, people who wanted to kill suddenly don't want to kill any more.

If Gun Control worked.

Chicago would be Mayberry.

Funny that the murder rate actually dropped after Chicago passed their first piece of gun legislation.

It has crept up since then (not to the level it was previously), but if the "aim" (this is a great gun pun) was to curb deaths via gun, it actually DID work.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Flanker86

Any so-called "background check" are illegal and unconstitutional, as they cannot cover subjects that the EU uses under MKULTRA effect and under the effect of other neurological weapons that induce violent behavior.

It is illegal.

And a thing they would not stand for the first and voting.

But since it's boom sticks they care not.

Lanza stole the one he used.

Cruz went through the background check and bought it legally.

There is no catch in place for what a person might do.

It looks as if again the background nics system failed cause cruz was in a mental health place among other problems.

a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

So you're worried about semantics rather than the actual point?

That's all you needed to say. Enjoy your time getting lost in the weeds. Columbine was the biggest school shooting in the dataset I was working with. No worries though, I'll make the correction.

originally posted by: testingtesting
Robot drones patroling schools.
Or ed-209 type robots or automated defence turrets in each classroom.
My bet is it will happen in 5 years.

I'll take that bet. 100-1 odds nothing happens except the overall trend in bodycounts from school shootings rise proportional to population increases, and the US rationalizes the 2nd amendment as 'you gotta shed the blood of a couple hundred innocent children a year to refresh the gun freedoms we enjoy'.

a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Funny that the murder rate actually dropped after Chicago passed their first piece of gun legislation.

No it didn't.

It took nearly 20 years for the homicide number to drop below what it was in 1982 and stay below that number, which was 670. And, ironically, it's continued to go down in the years since SCOTUS struck down Chicago's ban.

Does Chicago have the strictest gun laws in the country? It did after Mayor Jane Byrne pushed through the ban on firearms not already registered with Chicago police in March 1982. The city’s ban lasted until 2010, when the Supreme Court struck it down by a majority vote of 5-4. Two years later, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago struck down as unconstitutional the state’s ban on carrying concealed firearms. In 2013, the General Assembly passed a law making Illinois the last state to grant its residents the right to concealed carry. Right now, New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco have stricter gun laws on the books, experts say.

Handy little chart

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Flanker86

Any so-called "background check" are illegal and unconstitutional, as they cannot cover subjects that the EU uses under MKULTRA effect and under the effect of other neurological weapons that induce violent behavior.

It is illegal.

And a thing they would not stand for the first and voting.

But since it's boom sticks they care not.

Lanza stole the one he used.

Cruz went through the background check and bought it legally.

There is no catch in place for what a person might do.

It looks as if again the background nics system failed cause cruz was in a mental health place among other problems.

You do understand that simply receiving mental health services is not a prohibiting factor to gun ownership, right?

You do understand that there's a whole legal process that has to be gone through to have somebody declared mentally unfit, and if that process isn't done then you don't show up in a background search as being prohibited from purchasing a firearm?

a reply to: Irishhaf

Like seatbelt laws wont prevent every automobile accident death no law will prevent all shootings. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

a reply to: neo96

No one anywhere is advocating taking guns or prohibiting gun ownership so swim back to the shallows end of the pool dude.

a reply to: Thirty6BelowZero

No on is saying make all guns illegal.
The debate isn't all of nothing.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

So you're worried about semantics rather than the actual point?

That's all you needed to say. Enjoy your time getting lost in the weeds. Columbine was the biggest school shooting in the dataset I was working with. No worries though, I'll make the correction.

I'm not worried. But here's a data set, there were more school shootings in 1978 than in 1999 (the year of Columbine).

It's all just pin pointed data and really means nothing without context.

The fact is that the top 34 shootings where 8 people or more were killed, only 2 occurred during the AW Ban. This isn't arguable, it's just raw numbers. The most destructive of the most destructive, and only TWO of those happened during the AW Ban.

That's all I was stating. Not twisting anything. Just showing numbers.

-The 12 on that list that occurred PRIOR to the ban averaged 13.08 deaths per event.
-During the ban there was an average of 12.5 deaths per event
-The 20 that occurred AFTER the ban averaged 17.45 deaths per event.

What weapons were used in the upper echelon of those shootings:

Vegas - Assault Weapon
Orlando - Assault Weapon
VT - Handguns, no assault weapon
Sandy Hook - Assault Weapon
Sutherland Springs - Assault Weapon

Obviously banning Assault Weapons wouldn't 100% curtail this, but it's probably a reasonable and logical start. Truth be told, I already lost family friends in the Sutherland Springs (my in laws live outside of Sutherland Springs and their friends went to that church) shooting so it's extremely unlikely this will ever effect me again. Banning these weapons won't bring those people back, and it's not full proof in stopping the next attack.

It's funny that even though I'm in favor of the AW Ban happening again, I can completely understand that it won't stop what's happening completely. It seems like something like the Vegas shooting wouldn't have occurred, but who knows. I'm sure the people at the Concert would have preferred being shot at with Handguns and Bolt Action Rifles as opposed to what they got.

You seem adamant that banning AW's won't do a thing. That's just a little weird to me. Again, I can understand that you could be right, but it seems like you can't concede that I may also be right.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: neo96

No one anywhere is advocating taking guns or prohibiting gun ownership so swim back to the shallows end of the pool dude.

Well, Give a politician thousands of dollars to write a law, and try to make me.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Flanker86

Any so-called "background check" are illegal and unconstitutional, as they cannot cover subjects that the EU uses under MKULTRA effect and under the effect of other neurological weapons that induce violent behavior.

It is illegal.

And a thing they would not stand for the first and voting.

But since it's boom sticks they care not.

Lanza stole the one he used.

Cruz went through the background check and bought it legally.

There is no catch in place for what a person might do.

It looks as if again the background nics system failed cause cruz was in a mental health place among other problems.

You do understand that simply receiving mental health services is not a prohibiting factor to gun ownership, right?

You do understand that there's a whole legal process that has to be gone through to have somebody declared mentally unfit, and if that process isn't done then you don't show up in a background search as being prohibited from purchasing a firearm?

I think the way to start your question would not be "you do" but rather do you. Yes i am aware of what you dribble. How is your input relevant?

a reply to: GeechQuestInfo


Anything used to cause harm to another is an "assault weapon".

It is disingenuous to even thing you could differentiate.

A rock is an "assault weapon" when it's tossed at someone's head.

A sharp stick is an "assault weapon" when it's used to poke someone.

A fist is an "assault weapon" when it's used to punch someone in the nose.


Anything that goes "bang" "pew" is an assault weapon.

So when you say you only want to ban "assault weapons" you mean everything.

originally posted by: skunkape23
Letting kids spend hours playing video games where the main goal is to blow away as many as possible mixed with a coctail of pharmaceutical drugs could be a factor.
Just speculating.
A lack of education in gun safety could also be a factor.

Ive been playing shooting games for 20 years and have never had the urge to go shoot up a school.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Assualt weapon.

A Political neologism created by hoplophobes(gunphobes) to fear monger.

They already banned machine guns so they had to make up a new phrase.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Flanker86

Any so-called "background check" are illegal and unconstitutional, as they cannot cover subjects that the EU uses under MKULTRA effect and under the effect of other neurological weapons that induce violent behavior.

It is illegal.

And a thing they would not stand for the first and voting.

But since it's boom sticks they care not.

Lanza stole the one he used.

Cruz went through the background check and bought it legally.

There is no catch in place for what a person might do.

It looks as if again the background nics system failed cause cruz was in a mental health place among other problems.

You do understand that simply receiving mental health services is not a prohibiting factor to gun ownership, right?

You do understand that there's a whole legal process that has to be gone through to have somebody declared mentally unfit, and if that process isn't done then you don't show up in a background search as being prohibited from purchasing a firearm?

I think the way to start your question would not be "you do" but rather do you. Yes i am aware of what you dribble. How is your input relevant?

It's relevant due to the fact that if he wasn't ever adjudicated mentally deficient then he wouldn't have been in the database to begin with, which means the database didn't fail.

Look, just because you thought that having been in a mental health facility was enough to put him in the database is no reason to get snippy about it. I'm glad I was able to help you learn something.

STOP creating ....."Gun Free Zones" in actually their creating "killing fields". If the school teachers were armed or the school resource officer was "better armed" then I don't think a shooter would look at the school as an easy target.....in this last incident, it is more than obvious, that the school, the county, the teachers, the FBI dropped the ball. When the law comes to your home 36 times in 8 years there's a GINORMOUS RED FLAG FLYING OVER THIS KID.......a red flag that was ignored and the problem ignored. I would bet bottom dollar this kid took SSRI medications and that he had gone off those meds......when the warning label says'.......may cause homicidal and or suicidal thoughts or actions . That's a huge damn problem that exists in our schools all across the nation. Seems as if in this case, everyone just thought, he would just go away, expel him enough and he will just give up and go away. Ball got dropped and it caused 17 deaths. JUST HEARD on the news that a second report was made to the FBI regarding this kid.......from some one close to the family........FBI and all involved dropped the ball in a very bad way. Just damn sad is what it is. They can spy on all of us at will, but when it comes to being pro-active and really doing something..........silence.

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

So you're worried about semantics rather than the actual point?

That's all you needed to say. Enjoy your time getting lost in the weeds. Columbine was the biggest school shooting in the dataset I was working with. No worries though, I'll make the correction.

I'm not worried. But here's a data set, there were more school shootings in 1978 than in 1999 (the year of Columbine).

It's all just pin pointed data and really means nothing without context.

The fact is that the top 34 shootings where 8 people or more were killed, only 2 occurred during the AW Ban. This isn't arguable, it's just raw numbers. The most destructive of the most destructive, and only TWO of those happened during the AW Ban.

That's all I was stating. Not twisting anything. Just showing numbers.

-The 12 on that list that occurred PRIOR to the ban averaged 13.08 deaths per event.
-During the ban there was an average of 12.5 deaths per event
-The 20 that occurred AFTER the ban averaged 17.45 deaths per event.

What weapons were used in the upper echelon of those shootings:

Vegas - Assault Weapon
Orlando - Assault Weapon
VT - Handguns, no assault weapon
Sandy Hook - Assault Weapon
Sutherland Springs - Assault Weapon

Obviously banning Assault Weapons wouldn't 100% curtail this, but it's probably a reasonable and logical start. Truth be told, I already lost family friends in the Sutherland Springs (my in laws live outside of Sutherland Springs and their friends went to that church) shooting so it's extremely unlikely this will ever effect me again. Banning these weapons won't bring those people back, and it's not full proof in stopping the next attack.

It's funny that even though I'm in favor of the AW Ban happening again, I can completely understand that it won't stop what's happening completely. It seems like something like the Vegas shooting wouldn't have occurred, but who knows. I'm sure the people at the Concert would have preferred being shot at with Handguns and Bolt Action Rifles as opposed to what they got.

You seem adamant that banning AW's won't do a thing. That's just a little weird to me. Again, I can understand that you could be right, but it seems like you can't concede that I may also be right.

The problem is the dataset is too small to be meaningful statistically. It is like when a city has 600 deaths one year and 550 deaths the following year. A politician would be like deaths are down 9%. While factually true, you can't really draw much of a conclusion or correlation because the numbers are still relatively small. Maybe less people got shot in the head. The criminals doing the shooting were less accurate. They were using different types of guns. The location of shootings to trauma centers could have an impact.

You can't just claim the drop of a relatively insignificant number is related to some over arching law with that many factors to consider.

The other thing to consider is that nowadays, the general public is far more in tune with assault style rifles. Plus add in first person shooter games. I mean there are so many side issues that could be impactful in terms of why these shootings occur the way they do.