School shooting deaths don't add up. What's the number!?

a reply to: Byrd

Expect change. I suspect it won't go the way either of us wants but change is in the wind.

Why will you never understand that there is only one way to control guns in the USA.

Constitutional Convention!

That will never happen because the 'let's disarm the population' crowd would never let it come down to a vote of We The People.

Cowards all.

P

only a few hundred have actually died from school shootings since 2000 not thousands, most from suicide alone or just as a threat to others, most "school shootings" don't actually hurt or kill anyone.

7'000 sounds more like the number of injured since then.. probably less.

7'000 is total bs if you ask me.

ps. i don't feel like finding the link right now so take it as you will.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

The best source I've found, believe it or not, is mother jones. Now, it's all mass shootings, but it's a very thorough data set.
www.motherjones.com...

The total number of people killed in mass shootings is just over 800, in 35 years. In a country of 300 million people. It's not the epidemic people think it is. It's simply sensationalized media BS.

originally posted by: drock905
a reply to: Byrd

So the 80% apparently is just Chicago, After further digging the 80% is incorrect as a whole, but then 92-96% of all gang crime is done with a gun and in some Cities is more then half of the crime?

The more digging into stats the more confusing it becomes, it doesn’t seem as if there really are 100% accurate reporting using the same methodology. Anti gun, Pro gun, federal government, local government all have different definitions of what they factor into the reporting and a lot of reports contradict each other.

I agree that you've hit on the problem right there - how can any person rationally discuss this when the interpretations and statistics are all over the place. The CDC should be a fairly neutral reporting area, but not all of the data makes it there. And there's been quite the pushback in the past against studying firearms death and injury. I think this does BOTH sides a disservice.

From 2007 through 2012, a sizeable majority (more than 80 percent) of respondents provided data on gang-related homicides in their jurisdictions. The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2007 to 2012. During roughly the same time period (2007 to 2011), the FBI estimated, on average, more than 15,500 homicides across the United States (www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1). These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13 percent of all homicides annually. Highly populated areas accounted for the vast majority of gang homicides: nearly 67 percent occurred in cities with populations over 100,000, and 17 percent occurred in suburban counties in 2012. The number of gang-related homicides decreased 2 percent from 2010 to 2011 and then increased by 28 percent from 2011 to 2012 in cities with populations over 100,000. In a typical year in the so-called “gang capitals” of Chicago and Los Angeles, around half of all homicides are gang-related; these two cities alone accounted for approximately one in four gang homicides recorded in the NYGS from 2011 to 2012. Among agencies serving rural counties and smaller cities that reported gang activity, around 75 percent reported zero gang-related homicides. Five percent or less of all gang homicides occurred in these areas annually. Overall, these results demonstrate conclusively that gang violence is greatly concentrated in the largest cities across the United States.

That's pretty much what I thought, based on what I read in various newspapers (including local and national ones). However (having worked with police departments and physicians) I'm aware that not all of this makes it to the CDC. One of the main parts of a rational discussion is having definitions that everyone agrees upon and data that everyone has some confidence in. Right now, we don't have either.

And that makes it harder.

Why didn't anybody mention The Shootingtracker.com?

"Guns do not murder people, people wielding guns do."
This is the single dumbest argument imaginable, and instantly lose all respect for anybody foolish enough to say it. Dumb.

"Guns do not murder people, people wielding guns do."
This is the single dumbest argument imaginable, and instantly lose all respect for anybody foolish enough to say it. Dumb.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
Why didn't anybody mention The Shootingtracker.com?

I hadn't heard of most of those (or maybe they just scrolled across my radar and I didn't notice them.)

Don't forget in your city to statistics they include suicides with a gun as a gun death

originally posted by: Maroboduus
"Guns do not murder people, people wielding guns do."
This is the single dumbest argument imaginable, and instantly lose all respect for anybody foolish enough to say it. Dumb.

Lol.

I don't want nor do I need your respect.

Try thinking a little deeper.

P

originally posted by: Maroboduus
"Guns do not murder people, people wielding guns do."
This is the single dumbest argument imaginable, and instantly lose all respect for anybody foolish enough to say it. Dumb.

first I wanted to quote you so there is NO MISTAKE on what you said.

Now after seeing what you posted I can make three comments .

1. you are using a older than dirt and EASILY DISPROVED WITH FACTS anti gun propoganda.

2. name me ONE INCIDENT where SOMEONE WAS KILLED BY A GUN that loaded itself, put one in the chamber , turned off the safety, aimed, fired itself , KILLED SOMEONE, AND ALL THESE ACTIONS TOOK PLACE WITH NO HUMANS INVOLVED?
I (to be overly fair to point of silly) tried to search for such an incident....NOT EVEN ONE EXAMPLE .

this leads me to the final comment.

3. I dont need "respect" nor can even consider it worth anything from you if to get it one has to agree with a statement that is NOT FACTUAL IN THE LEAST.

Now IF you can find an incident where a gun "has killed someone not a person" then PROVIDE IT.
If not then you have lost any respect much less credibility for nothing more than PROPAGANDA.

Scrounger

a reply to: Byrd

I appreciate someone wanting more precise facts.
It is refreshing I do say

But sadly your presumption both sides equally are twisting them is not true
While I don't doubt you will find some sources published that the pro gun/pro second amendment that are twisting the truth those that are VERY FEW probably numbering in less than 5 .
while those anti gun you can do a simple search and your search engine will be flooded within nano seconds with inaccurate information.

one example alone is the 7,000 death in school mass shootings.

while not perfect the DOJ and FBI are pretty accurate.
Looking at the stats that come out from those two sources if you view the reports they put out they are constantly shooting down (no pun intended) anti gun rants left and right.

The reality is anti gun supporters will NEVER LISTEN TO ANY STATISTICS that counter their rants.
In fact when you try to question alot of them (including here on ATS) they do everything from name calling , propaganda , and listing their proven wrong facts with massive venom .

they are sadly not interested in the truth...

I will leave you with this proof of this...

The DOJ and miltary classifies "assault weapons" as "a weapon that can go from semi to three round burst and/or full auto at choice of firer"

this WELL PUBLISHED FACT is ignored by the anti gun people for well since the first "assault weapon ban" back in the 80s

Scrounger

originally posted by: scrounger
a reply to: Byrd

I appreciate someone wanting more precise facts.
It is refreshing I do say

But sadly your presumption both sides equally are twisting them is not true

I don't presume that both sides are twisting facts. I think that they have different definitions and that this is causing more problems than it settles and makes it more difficult to come to some sort of agreement. Others have noticed this as well.

one example alone is the 7,000 death in school mass shootings.

I think your source misread the headlines. That's 7,000 dead from gun violence. It's not from mass shootings or on school campuses. It's from drive-bys and accidental shootings and gang activity and parents in murder-suicide acts and a lot of other things.

while not perfect the DOJ and FBI are pretty accurate.
Looking at the stats that come out from those two sources if you view the reports they put out they are constantly shooting down (no pun intended) anti gun rants left and right.

They are reasonably accurate (it depends on reporting and if it's recorded.)

The DOJ and miltary classifies "assault weapons" as "a weapon that can go from semi to three round burst and/or full auto at choice of firer"

this WELL PUBLISHED FACT is ignored by the anti gun people for well since the first "assault weapon ban" back in the 80s

I think our contention is that it doesn't matter what it's called - it's being used to kill in a peacetime environment (I assume we're not at war with each other) and it's designed to kill a lot of people very quickly. And we think that it should not be in the hands of someone with (say) chronic rage syndromes or in the hands of someone who's beaten their kids and spouse so badly that they were hospitalized.

We also think it should not be in the hands of a number of other folks. But there seems to be a pushback against this idea.

I'm enjoying this thread.

The answer is, of course, too many for a developed nation.

But hey, keep "debating".

a reply to: drock905


I have no idea. You brought it up. I was talking about the thread title.


The longer this 17 Angels stuff gets played, the weirder it looks to me. We have not been shown any of the video footage recorded by what Halbig says is 26 video cameras, and he worked there. 17 shot by military style weapons not being caught on video doesn't say much about the quality of their video surveillance system.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: scrounger
a reply to: Byrd

I appreciate someone wanting more precise facts.
It is refreshing I do say

But sadly your presumption both sides equally are twisting them is not true

I don't presume that both sides are twisting facts. I think that they have different definitions and that this is causing more problems than it settles and makes it more difficult to come to some sort of agreement. Others have noticed this as well.

one example alone is the 7,000 death in school mass shootings.

I think your source misread the headlines. That's 7,000 dead from gun violence. It's not from mass shootings or on school campuses. It's from drive-bys and accidental shootings and gang activity and parents in murder-suicide acts and a lot of other things.

while not perfect the DOJ and FBI are pretty accurate.
Looking at the stats that come out from those two sources if you view the reports they put out they are constantly shooting down (no pun intended) anti gun rants left and right.

They are reasonably accurate (it depends on reporting and if it's recorded.)

The DOJ and miltary classifies "assault weapons" as "a weapon that can go from semi to three round burst and/or full auto at choice of firer"

this WELL PUBLISHED FACT is ignored by the anti gun people for well since the first "assault weapon ban" back in the 80s

I think our contention is that it doesn't matter what it's called - it's being used to kill in a peacetime environment (I assume we're not at war with each other) and it's designed to kill a lot of people very quickly. And we think that it should not be in the hands of someone with (say) chronic rage syndromes or in the hands of someone who's beaten their kids and spouse so badly that they were hospitalized.

We also think it should not be in the hands of a number of other folks. But there seems to be a pushback against this idea.

So if their source misread a headline then the students marching did too because their message focuses on children being afraid to go to school, that they risk their lives going to school, out of fear of another mass shooting.

I WISH the focus were on the drivebys and general gun violence kids in the inner city have dealt with for DECADES, but it’s not.

The issue, their march, everything, is completely framed within the school shooting.

People are in total fear for their children, in tears whenever the subject comes up because of the ‘epidemic’ that’s being pushed.

If people really cared about kids getting shot they would’ve cried out like this decades ago, there’s been no shortage of it. No, the fact that it’s only happening now, when the numbers of school shootings are inflated and hyped, after white kids get shot, is a clear indicator of an agenda.
We’re clearly being manipulted w fear; we’re being polarized against one another on purpose.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: scrounger
a reply to: Byrd



I think our contention is that it doesn't matter what it's called - it's being used to kill in a peacetime environment (I assume we're not at war with each other) and it's designed to kill a lot of people very quickly. And we think that it should not be in the hands of someone with (say) chronic rage syndromes or in the hands of someone who's beaten their kids and spouse so badly that they were hospitalized.

We also think it should not be in the hands of a number of other folks. But there seems to be a pushback against this idea.

think our contention is that it doesn't matter what it's called - it's being used to kill in a peacetime environment (I assume we're not at war with each other) and it's designed to kill a lot of people very quickly. And we think that it should not be in the hands of someone with (say) chronic rage syndromes or in the hands of someone who's beaten their kids and spouse so badly that they were hospitalized.

I posted your last part for accuracy.

despite your claim wanting to seek facts your comment shows you still are in a anti gun propaganda mindset.
No gun is "designed to kill a lot of people quickly".
they are designed to shoot bullets....
some shoot them faster than others---burst fire and automatic
some shoot more accurately than others
Its the USER that determines if it will kill someone, hunt an animal , or shoot a tin can for that matter.

In fact if you care to do some real research into military information you find it takes (outside of highly trained snipers) hundreds or more bullets to kill one person in combat.

you also find out that the ar 15 used in school shooting (outside of sharing looks and some parts) IS NOT USED BY THE MILITARY....

In fact one can do as much damage with shotguns, a semi auto 22 (which in internal tube magazine holds over 20 rounds), pistols, and ANY GUN outside of a musket .
in fact if you care to do research the Virginia tech shooter killed MORE than the FL shooter with just a couple of pistols.

I agree that ANY GUN should not be in the hands of a CRIMINAL, someone with certain mental illnesses, or in short someone who is intent on doing harm.

but the REALITY is someone who is intent on doing harm can USE MORE THAN GUNS to accomplish same task.
without giving anymore info that is already available he could have run down the group outside with a truck, he could have used pesticides available on any farm, or a backpack full of IEDs

Do I have to remind you mcvey killed by a factor of 1000 more with a truck and fertilizer ?

Here is some honest truth and advice...

If you are GENUINE in your claim that your "seeing facts" then the first thing you have to do is DROP the thought process you stated above....

unless you do that all the facts in the world will not help you...

Scrounger

edit on 28-3-2018 by scrounger because: some info didnt post

I guess I'm not saying that necessarily Russia or any one such as that is out to get you or anyone else. Just don't make the same mistake Canada did.

a reply to: Maroboduus

What's dumb about that statement? Do cars murder people? Knives are to blame for stabbing deaths? Should we ban the cold because people freeze to death every year?

You're working off of a very simplistic and illogical mode of thinking if you can't grasp the gist behind a statement about not blaming a tool or inanimate object.