Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[Mike F]

Brilliant.

I'm sure police responding to a terrorist incident on that campus will have no problem instantaneously differentiating between the bad guys running around with guns from the good guys running around with guns.

Or the armed students making that differentiation themselves, for that matter.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

Guns on university campuses........what could go wrong?







http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/05/us/lib...nts/index.html

That Falwell family.....wow.

It's unfathomable to me how anyone still follows that crew.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

Guns on university campuses........what could go wrong?

Well, all the whining over "safe spaces" would take an interesting and abrupt turn.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

For the first time since 1920, the NY Times will run a front page editorial. The editorial calls for more gun control

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/w...d=sm_fb_maddow

Good article by the Times., well articulated points made. Surprised they ignored Canada; we are more similar to them than France/Norway and would be better proof of the measures that could be taken to stem their problem.

I only breezed through the comments, but they were generally pretty positive. I suspect the Times has a higher quality of readership, and hence comment section doesn't resemble YouTube/Calgary Sun.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I know it's kind of a ###### move to quote yourself, but I was just thinking of something else in relation to this chart. We constantly here from the anti-gun control crowd that places like Chicago have high amounts of gun violence, despite having gun-control measures because blah blah blah. Yet even with Chicago's gang problems and associated gun violence, the state of Illinois still has far fewer gun deaths per capita than the Southern States with no gun control. Now, I know the response to that is probably along the lines that the rest of Illinois brings down the average, so I'll point to another example, the District of Columbia. D.C. is basically a city, that has been notorious for violence over the years, so if this argument held then their numbers should be higher than the Southern States, but yet again we see that they're not.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by transplant99

That Falwell family.....wow.

It's unfathomable to me how anyone still follows that crew.

Just wondering, but why does it seem that the bible thumpers love guns more than anyone else?

Since I've been 12 years old I laughed at religion but the Christians that tried to convert me always stated I needed Jesus in my life for peace,love and goodwill to others...hmmm!

[T@T]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I know it's kind of a ###### move to quote yourself, but I was just thinking of something else in relation to this chart. We constantly here from the anti-gun control crowd that places like Chicago have high amounts of gun violence, despite having gun-control measures because blah blah blah. Yet even with Chicago's gang problems and associated gun violence, the state of Illinois still has far fewer gun deaths per capita than the Southern States with no gun control. Now, I know the response to that is probably along the lines that the rest of Illinois brings down the average, so I'll point to another example, the District of Columbia. D.C. is basically a city, that has been notorious for violence over the years, so if this argument held then their numbers should be higher than the Southern States, but yet again we see that they're not.

South Chicago down to Gary Indiana has most likely the worst gang/crime area in the history of the USA. The city of Chicago banning guns will do little unless the state of Indiana follows suit.

NY state and California stands out for me, 3rd and 8th best despite being 3rd and 1st in population respectively. It truly shows making it difficult to own a handgun saves lives.

[BigBrodieFan]

Interesting Statistics- which may have already been discussed but I am not going to dig- so I apologize in advance if this information is on this board someplace.

Mass Shootings under the Last Five Presidents

Ronald Reagan: 1981-1989 (8 years) 11 mass shootings
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 5
George H. W. Bush: 1989-1993 (4 years) 12 mass murders
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 3

Bill Clinton: 1993-2001 (8 years) 23 mass murders
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 4
George W. Bush: 2001-2009 (8 years) 20 mass murders
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 5

Barrack H. Obama: 2009-2015 (in 7th year) 162 mass murders
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 18

Is there some kind of direct correlation to the Obama and mass shootings? If it were the opposite and a conservative president was in power, it would be spun to be the conservative president's fault because of too many guns. Yet Obama has talked constantly of wanting more gun control laws, and yet not just a few more- but 8 times more mass shootings have occurred in Obama's term than any other presidential term since Reagan (sorry the data only goes back until then)- and if you look you can see that they increased four-fold in his first term as president.

Guns are rampant and too easy to get here in the US, but it's not just the guns, as they've always been very easy to get, and there are more gun laws than ever at this point in American history. There is something very, very, very wrong with American society. I have a theory which I know won't be popular because most Canadians seem to have very liberal stances when it comes to gun control because they haven't lived here and they don't understand the concept of the Constitution and how the Yanks feel about it.

I really think that the reason gun violence in the form of mass shootings is becoming a societal norm is due to the political process here. Politicians here are the worst scumbags in the country- most with a completely different agenda than 'for the greater good.' It doesn't matter which side they are on- other countries don't understand that the political leadership here are incredibly stupid and incapable. If you do find one that's smart enough to make any sense, they do not have an agenda for 'the greater good.' They will always have an ulterior motive and most of the time, it's self serving.

The problem here is that the two political parties spend all of their time telling one another how the other is wrong on every level, and absolutely nothing gets done. The political climate here is laughable and on the verge of lunacy. Spend a couple of hours watching Congress on television. It's like watching really bad stand up comedy, over and over.

Yes, it's the prevalence of guns. Yes, it's the crazy idiots who do the shooting. Yes it's the NRA lobbyists. But what is actually making people decide to go through with a mass shooting despite the consequences is a question that can be pointed to a very broken society for an answer. It's neither Republicans nor Democrats- it's just the entire broken, horrific, cluster#### of a system here that is so used to laying blame on one party or another, we've completely become insensitive to humanity. The victims are long forgotten as there are too many to mention. But what's never forgotten, is the constant blaming and bashing of which ideologies are right or wrong.

The only thing people seem to care about is who wins the argument. But, in this case, it's just not winnable.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

Interesting Statistics- which may have already been discussed but I am not going to dig- so I apologize in advance if this information is on this board someplace.

Mass Shootings under the Last Five Presidents

Ronald Reagan: 1981-1989 (8 years) 11 mass shootings
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 5
George H. W. Bush: 1989-1993 (4 years) 12 mass murders
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 3

Bill Clinton: 1993-2001 (8 years) 23 mass murders
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 4
George W. Bush: 2001-2009 (8 years) 20 mass murders
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 5

Barrack H. Obama: 2009-2015 (in 7th year) 162 mass murders
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 18

Is there some kind of direct correlation to the Obama and mass shootings? If it were the opposite and a conservative president was in power, it would be spun to be the conservative president's fault because of too many guns. Yet Obama has talked constantly of wanting more gun control laws, and yet not just a few more- but 8 times more mass shootings have occurred in Obama's term than any other presidential term since Reagan (sorry the data only goes back until then)- and if you look you can see that they increased four-fold in his first term as president.

There is a direct correlation between the Obama presidency and the amount of guns being sold in America.

In one of my own posts: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=2731

I link to a Business Insider article which links to an ATF report, here's the gist: Since Obama was elected, gun sales have increased almost exponentially. Between 1986 and 2007 gun sales in America were basically flat. 3,040,934 guns were sold in 1986. 3,922,613 guns were sold in America in 2007. Between 1986 and 2007 there was some fluctuation, the high being 1994 when 5,173,217 guns were sold. The low was 2001 with 2,932,655.

Then 2008 rolls around and it starts looking like Obama's going to get elected.

Here are the number of guns sold per year between 2008 and 2013.

2008 - 4,498,944
2009 - 5,555,818
2010 - 5,459,240
2011 - 6,541,886
2012 - 8,578,610
2013 - 10,884,792

There isn't data in the report for 2014, but there were recently a number of news reports about this black friday being amazing for gun sales:

Federal Bureau of Investigation spokesman Stephen Fischer confirmed to Fortune that there were 185,345 background checks on November 27, easily beating the previous all time high of 177,170 on December 21, 2012, which was shortly after the Sandy Hook massacre in Connecticut.

So, yes, there is a correlation between the Obama Presidency and these kinds of incidents. Specifically, the explosion in gun ownership, fuelling more opportunities for gun-violence.

Repeal the 2nd, confiscate guns, implement reasonable controls.
This is the only solution.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

Interesting Statistics- which may have already been discussed but I am not going to dig- so I apologize in advance if this information is on this board someplace.

Mass Shootings under the Last Five Presidents

Ronald Reagan: 1981-1989 (8 years) 11 mass shootings
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 5
George H. W. Bush: 1989-1993 (4 years) 12 mass murders
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 3

Bill Clinton: 1993-2001 (8 years) 23 mass murders
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 4
George W. Bush: 2001-2009 (8 years) 20 mass murders
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 5

Barrack H. Obama: 2009-2015 (in 7th year) 162 mass murders
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 18

Is there some kind of direct correlation to the Obama and mass shootings? If it were the opposite and a conservative president was in power, it would be spun to be the conservative president's fault because of too many guns. Yet Obama has talked constantly of wanting more gun control laws, and yet not just a few more- but 8 times more mass shootings have occurred in Obama's term than any other presidential term since Reagan (sorry the data only goes back until then)- and if you look you can see that they increased four-fold in his first term as president.

The correlation is that the Republicans have amped up the partisan hyperbole and vitriol to unheard of levels during the Obama years, and their base is more riled up and gun-crazy than ever.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by ernie

An older study.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

That's even sadder when you consider how low the bar for justifiable shooting is in the US.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by ernie

For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

Originally Posted by T@T

Just wondering, but why does it seem that the bible thumpers love guns more than anyone else?

Since I've been 12 years old I laughed at religion but the Christians that tried to convert me always stated I needed Jesus in my life for peace,love and goodwill to others...hmmm!

There was a study in the Economist a few years back that compared values across countries. The values were presented in a graph that showed collectivism versus individualism on the X axis, and tradition versus utility on the Y axis.

On this graph, America was located in a complete different quadrant from the rest of the developed world. Not only was it much closer to the end of the individualism axis, but it was solidly in the tradition side of the tradition versus utility axis. In fact, American attitudes were clustered closer to those of Middle Eastern and Latin American countries than European.

What this means is that instead of assessing matters by utilitarian cost/benefit, the way someone who finds ernie's stats about accidental deaths and suicides vs successful home defence persuasive, they rely on traditional sources of values (religion, the wisdom of forefathers, honour) to make decisions. There are parts of the U.S. where the Enlightenment hasn't taken deep root yet. These regions became democratic before they became civilized.

In other words, you can present statistics and empirical arguments to them until the cows come home and it won't matter, because statistics and empiricism don't mean much to these people. They have values they regard as sacred, and will fiercely defend those values, regardless of the effect in the real world.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The correlation is that the Republicans have amped up the partisan hyperbole and vitriol to unheard of levels during the Obama years, and their base is more riled up and gun-crazy than ever.

Agree with this. I think the Fox News type media and then the tea party type Republicans have riled people up to the point that a lot of folks are out loading up on guns. You do wonder if they'll ever realized this.

[Caged Great]

The same stuff happened to a lesser extent under Clinton. Look at how there was a steady increase in domestic terrorism ramping up to the Oklahoma City Bombing, because certain strains of Republicans went bonkers.

It is a lot easier to incite those strains of Republicans this time because Obama is different and it has to do with his skin color as well as his party. Half the party believes that he is a secret Muslim and I wouldn't be surprised if a large portion of that segment thinks he's part of the reason why ISIS exists. That's why all of the republican candidates are harping on him for not calling them Islamic extremist terrorists.

This nonsense will continue until Democrats get elected in the House/Senate and a couple of alterations are made to the supreme court. The only way to stop this lunacy it to outright ban guns. Either that or restrict the purchase of bullets to shooting ranges and hunting lodges. Any ammunition located literally anywhere else than those sanctified areas is a criminal offense. You can have your guns, but you can't have anything to shoot. It needs to be a one or the other kind of thing.

[Itse]

Trying to ban guns in the US would probably result in some wackos starting "revolutionary militias" to fight back. Plus a ton of lone wackos fortifying themselves in their houses.

I'm being serious, I think that would happen.

[sun]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I know it's kind of a ###### move to quote yourself, but I was just thinking of something else in relation to this chart. We constantly here from the anti-gun control crowd that places like Chicago have high amounts of gun violence, despite having gun-control measures because blah blah blah. Yet even with Chicago's gang problems and associated gun violence, the state of Illinois still has far fewer gun deaths per capita than the Southern States with no gun control. Now, I know the response to that is probably along the lines that the rest of Illinois brings down the average, so I'll point to another example, the District of Columbia. D.C. is basically a city, that has been notorious for violence over the years, so if this argument held then their numbers should be higher than the Southern States, but yet again we see that they're not.

I always find the Chicago argument interesting. Something like "gun control doesn't work, look at Chicago". Well, what about NYC?

NY state has one of the lowest gun murder rates because NYC has strict (relative to America) gun restrictions. And the surrounding areas aren't bad either. Chicago is surrounded by terrible gun laws. Unless there are Chicago border checks, you can just cop a gun somewhere else and waltz back into the city.

Anyways, "gun control doesn't work, look at Chicago". Fine. Imagine two cities that passed good, strict gun laws. Works great in one (NYC), terrible in the other (Chicago). 1 out of 2, notbad.gif. What rational person looks at that and says "let's not pass those laws, they didn't work in Chicago"? They DID work in America's biggest city. Dramatically.

The gun murder rate in America is SO HIGH (~30k gun deaths = 20k suicide, 10k murder), that even if the laws are 50% ineffective, 75% ineffective, 90% ineffective, it still means THOUSANDS OF LIVES SAVED.

They are in such a bad position that doing almost ANYTHING will save thousands of lives now and countless lives in the future. Yet, America still chooses to do nothing, because owning guns is their "right" and the "libs" can pry them out of their cold, dead hands. Nameless, faceless thousands be damned.

[Sakic19]

Originally Posted by Itse

Trying to ban guns in the US would probably result in some wackos starting "revolutionary militias" to fight back. Plus a ton of lone wackos fortifying themselves in their houses.

I'm being serious, I think that would happen.

The militia and "patriot group" movement has grown significantly since Obama was elected. Probably best known for helping out the racist cliven bundy


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...on-d/?page=all

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by Itse

Trying to ban guns in the US would probably result in some wackos starting "revolutionary militias" to fight back. Plus a ton of lone wackos fortifying themselves in their houses.

I'm being serious, I think that would happen.

I say 'so what' to that. It would be a good opportunity to wipe a few of those paranoid sillies off the map.

[Street Pharmacist]

I discussed this a few years ago on here with mikey, but we focus on the murder part of the equation often and miss the suicide part. The vast majority of suicides are impulsive, and guns ensure a high rate of success. I had the studies and numbers before, but don't care to look then up again. Basically, those who are unsuccessful at suicide don't ever try again (lots of studies to back this up). When looking at the various ways people kill themselves, most have barriers that his do not. For example, jumping off a bridge requires overcoming far more psychological barriers. Swallowing pills is less successful and the victim doesn't know the outcome. Guns are quick and easily used. Decreasing availability of guns most likely would lead to a significant decrease in suicides too

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I discussed this a few years ago on here with mikey, but we focus on the murder part of the equation often and miss the suicide part. The vast majority of suicides are impulsive, and guns ensure a high rate of success. I had the studies and numbers before, but don't care to look then up again. Basically, those who are unsuccessful at suicide don't ever try again (lots of studies to back this up). When looking at the various ways people kill themselves, most have barriers that his do not. For example, jumping off a bridge requires overcoming far more psychological barriers. Swallowing pills is less successful and the victim doesn't know the outcome. Guns are quick and easily used. Decreasing availability of guns most likely would lead to a significant decrease in suicides too

It's all tied together with the availability, a big percentage of 2nd degree murders wouldn't happen if there was no gun "handy" when someone snaps in a fit of rage, over 1600 people died last year from accidental gun deaths and about half were under 14 years old.