It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

2000 mass shootings in 6 years?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 04:52 PM
link   
So i came across this fancy infographic stating that there's been over 2000 mass shootings in the last 6 years. Having read the list of shootings in America recently, this seemed odd to me as i remember there not even being 2000 over the entire history of america. Upon looking at the list once again it would seem that most of those 2000 over the last 6 years are not listed. Now i don't necessarily take wikipedia as the ultimate in accurate information, but seems to me such a thing would be actively updated.

So....which one is bull#?




posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: dug88

Neither is bull. The wiki list is only notable shootings.

The Vox list is every incident they can find that fits their definition of a mass shooting, including domestic violence and gang violence. What’s bull is that they don’t disclose their methodology, and attempt to deceive the reader into believing Pulse nightclub type shootings are happening more than once a day.




posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: dug88

The infographic is bull. They define mass shooting as 4 people shot whereas a mass shooting is actually 4 people killed without including the shooter(s).



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ManWhoWasThursday

That’s your definition. The Secret Service isn’t using that definition.

Hence why Vox can do what they do. They use whatever definition best fits their agenda.



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

I use the official definition. And nice, you're using a completely different phrase. Try mass shooting.

fas.org...
edit on 9-8-2019 by ManWhoWasThursday because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ManWhoWasThursday


There is no broadly agreed-to, specific conceptualization of this issue, so this report uses its own definition for public mass shootings.


Try reading your own source. Your “official definition” is the “official definition” of that report.


And nice, you're using a completely different phrase.


That’s literally the point I made. There is no one term with one definition. Thanks.

edit on 9-8-2019 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManWhoWasThursday
a reply to: Shamrock6

I use the official definition. And nice, you're using a completely different phrase. Try mass shooting.

fas.org...


For a grand total of dead and wounded of 1,023 since 1983.
Not to take away from the victims here but that hardly constitutes an epidemic.



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

If I correctly recall, at least one of the anti-gun groups was caught even using police involved shootings where more than one criminal or the criminal and one or more officers were hit in gunfire exchanges in their "mass shooting" stats a few years back.

Simple fact, 60% of firearm related deaths in this country are suicides. In my humble opinion, these don't even belong in the conversation on firearms. Simply put, if we're going to live in a country where "her body, her choice" is the law of the land, then "their body, their choice" needs to be the law of the land where suicides are concerned. It's not a public safety or health issue, it's a private choice and if someone wants to die they're going to figure out how to kill themselves, be it with a firearm, razor blade, drugs, asphyxiation, or otherwise. So now we've gone from a rate of 12 deaths per 100,000 Americans to the realistic figure of less than 5 deaths per 100,000 Americans. You are literally more likely to die in a fire than by being shot.

This entire argument is based on a cocktail of lies, fears, and manipulation all carefully crafted to disarm the populace and render us even more useless and helpless than the average American doofus already is.



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: ManWhoWasThursday
a reply to: Shamrock6

I use the official definition. And nice, you're using a completely different phrase. Try mass shooting.

fas.org...


For a grand total of dead and wounded of 1,023 since 1983.
Not to take away from the victims here but that hardly constitutes an epidemic.


Against the cost of over 1.1 MILLION US soldiers who have died over the past 243 years to obtain and secure the 2nd Amendment for us. Some would have us sell that debt for pennies to the dollar, crapping down the neck of every man and woman in service who gave all for our Rights.



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManWhoWasThursday
a reply to: dug88

The infographic is bull. They define mass shooting as 4 people shot whereas a mass shooting is actually 4 people killed without including the shooter(s).


So if two rival gangs get together in Chicago and 4 guys end up dead is it a mass shooting or not?

As a statistician, I completely understand the confabulation of statistical data to prove whatever point the paying customer wants to present.

If I'm following you correctly, suicides and accidental deaths aren't counted - so that's one tiny point in favor of the infographic. Still, the analyst presents gang violence as a mass shooting event to make the customer's propaganda points - unfortunately.

ganjoa



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6


Simple fact, 60% of firearm related deaths in this country are suicides.


Yep. And about the same percentage of mass shootings/murders/whatever you want to call it are domestic or gang related.

These are all the dirty little details groups like Vox will never admit but are happy to use.



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: ManWhoWasThursday
a reply to: Shamrock6

I use the official definition. And nice, you're using a completely different phrase. Try mass shooting.

fas.org...


For a grand total of dead and wounded of 1,023 since 1983.
Not to take away from the victims here but that hardly constitutes an epidemic.


Criminals who entered America illegally have murdered FAR MORE than 1,023!

The Left/Democrats care more about them, than the Americans they've murdered.

Total EVIL.


(post by Forensick removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: burdman30ott6


Simple fact, 60% of firearm related deaths in this country are suicides.


Yep. And about the same percentage of mass shootings/murders/whatever you want to call it are domestic or gang related.

These are all the dirty little details groups like Vox will never admit but are happy to use.


Ironically, the problem with all of it, gun laws, shooters (mass, spree, and otherwise), suicides, and Vox's reporting boils down to the same concept: YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID. Never have been able to, never will be able to. Killers are gonna kill, the weak are going to off themselves, and biased fear mongering liberal journalists are going to invent boogeymen to keep their sycophantic consumers in perpetual fear so they don't realize the true object of the country's terminal cancer is the leftist fascism they keep voting for.



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Forensick

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: ManWhoWasThursday
a reply to: Shamrock6

I use the official definition. And nice, you're using a completely different phrase. Try mass shooting.

fas.org...


For a grand total of dead and wounded of 1,023 since 1983.
Not to take away from the victims here but that hardly constitutes an epidemic.


Against the cost of over 1.1 MILLION US soldiers who have died over the past 243 years to obtain and secure Oil for us.


Fixed that for you.


Oil was a pretty big concern in the War of 1812, it’s true.




posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: dug88


I understand that CNN even used bb guns as examples of mass shootings.


"Torture numbers long enough and you'll get any answer you want."
-Anon



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Forensick

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: ManWhoWasThursday
a reply to: Shamrock6

I use the official definition. And nice, you're using a completely different phrase. Try mass shooting.

fas.org...


For a grand total of dead and wounded of 1,023 since 1983.
Not to take away from the victims here but that hardly constitutes an epidemic.


Against the cost of over 1.1 MILLION US soldiers who have died over the past 243 years to obtain and secure Oil for us.


Fixed that for you.


Oil was a pretty big concern in the War of 1812, it’s true.



Rumor has it Jefferson Davis was sitting on an ocean of black gold in Atlanta and that's what Lincoln was after...



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 06:01 PM
link   
For all the folks who think the number is inflated, do you have a number in mind that you could consider to be "acceptable collateral damage," as long as we get to keep our guns? Kind of like we as a society agree that 40,000 people being killed on the road each in car accidents is an acceptable number as long we still get to keep our cars? Which is what we do.

A society makes these kinds of deals with the Devil all the time. Only when the perception of the number gets too high do we consider doing something serious about it.



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

What number would get you to give up a right?



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift
For all the folks who think the number is inflated, do you have a number in mind that you could consider to be "acceptable collateral damage," as long as we get to keep our guns? Kind of like we as a society agree that 40,000 people being killed on the road each in car accidents is an acceptable number as long we still get to keep our cars? Which is what we do.

A society makes these kinds of deals with the Devil all the time. Only when the perception of the number gets too high do we consider doing something serious about it.


No, "shall not be infringed" seems to be pretty clear to me. If the number of shootings in America climbs to a certain point, which I honestly am not going to participate in a pissing against the wind exercise in trying to define, we have plenty of avenues and tools available to address the actual issue (that issue being some people simply suck) without violating the Constitution or throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Maybe it's time we, oh I don't know, actually try enforcing the laws already on the books for a change? Just an idea... but considering both the El Paso Shooter and the Ohio shooter were known to law enforcement and both met criteria for which they could and should have been sent for psych evaluations under already existing laws, it's just a crazy enough idea that it might work.




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join