Moderators Travis In Austin Posted October 5, 2015 Moderators Share Posted October 5, 2015 Keep in mind, these kind of killings are unique to the USA. That's a myth. For whatever reason, we want to perceive Europe as being more "civilized" than us. Take a look at their track-record. Mass shootings exist everywhere guns exist. Our per capita rate of incidents is significantly higher and that is unique. I think this article from the WSJ is pretty accurate on the numbers and rates. They discuss Canada, the UK and Australia. They also discuss Switzerland and the reason for high ownership rates. http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-leads-world-in-mass-shootings-1443905359 As pointed out in that article, a "mass shooting" is considered 4 or more deaths in one incident. So someone could go into building and kill 1, wound 10, and it wouldn't be considered a "mass shooting." There is a website that tracks mass shooting based on 4 or more wounded OR killed. Here is a link to their list http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted October 5, 2015 Author Share Posted October 5, 2015 Mass shootings exist everywhere guns exist. Our per capita rate of incidents is significantly higher and that is unique. Yes, I didn't mean that there were NO mass shootings in other countries of similar wealth. What is unique is the frequency and quantity. Everyone focuses all the time on two points which have nothing to do with the problem, and it IS a problem. First, they focus endlessly into boredom about "the right to have a gun" and second, they obsess with the idea that it's all about "criminals with guns." Neither will uncover what is happening in the USA that is unique. The shooters are generally NOT criminals. I can't stress that enough. But somehow, and I suspect it is the result of propaganda, everyone wants to talk about CRIMINALS! It ain't Baby Face Nelson shooting up the schools, it's baby-faced little Joey Smith - Anykid, USA. In so many cases, the kid has never even seen the inside of a police station, let alone jail or prison. Might this be a clue to people that this transcends the criminal justice system? And, it isn't a question of "Europe" in any way. Japan and Australia have miniscule amounts of this mass killing activity. Is there some reason we are scared to death to admit that "something is wrong here?" 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) Well, apparently, neither of you decided to look at my link to the article and chart demonstrating that Switzerland, Norway and Finland had higher per capita rates of mass murders. Here it is again for convenience: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/ Edited October 5, 2015 by Jeff Matthews 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) It has nothing whatsoever to do with criminals getting guns. It has nothing to do with criminals at all. Shooters are generally indistinguishable from anyone else on the street until they snap. They're usually loners, on psych meds, and have a history of being bullied. However, a new trend is emerging where shooters are linked to a certain Religion Of Peace. Why are so many schools involved? Well, to put it bluntly, it's a target rich environment. Lots of warm bodies in a small space where they can't easily escape, plus it's a gun free zone so nobody's going to fight back. Why so many males and so few females involved? Males often deal with more violence when being bullied, are more exposed to guns and know how to use them, plus they don't shy away from violence in general like girls do, which is why when committing suicide males are much more likely to use a gun, females would rather take sleeping pills. Most have a dozen guns, not just one. Not really. I've never heard of anybody actually bringing a dozen guns to a shooting. A few at the most. Charles Whitman used the most I have ever heard of and he had like half that amount. Edited October 5, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vindeville Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) Obama, politicians and government facilities are protected by guns.....But not our kids....which are more valuable???maybe the government agencies should set an example and give up their guns. Same liberal thinkers that hate guns want legal drugs....Our president even pardons drug dealers cause they are non violent offenders....really???? how many die from drugs and violence related to drugs??(my sister was one). A baby has a heart beat and its legal to kill that baby and even use its parts for research????even in government funded organizations that you and I pay for. How about government funded armed security in our schools for a start. This way the nut jobs aren't just going to slaughter the innocent and unprotected. Ill be down with my taxes funding that. This will create some jobs to boot. Crazy, angry people are only emboldened by weakness both socially and politically...they will never go away and your in fantasy land if you think they will. Bad guys will always get guns, will always do bad things. We cannot undo guns thus its important for good people to have them to keep balance. I do not own one gun but probably should and likely will in the near future. If our Government and citizens cannot be consistent among the many things that cost lives in our country the lets not carry on so every time something bad happens here. Lets ban cars, motorcycles, hunting, NASCAR, football...anything thats risky wrap ourselves in bubble wrap and hope for the best. Lets get strict on punishments for violent crimes and uphold the laws already in place first and foremost. We gotta start there it seems to me. Edited October 5, 2015 by vindeville 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldenough Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Is there some reason we are scared to death to admit that "something is wrong here?" The answer is in the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted October 5, 2015 Author Share Posted October 5, 2015 Therefore, what's different? Probably our educational system. What seems to be different about our education system is the low priority it has in the culture. School facilities are a mess, school operations are an even worse mess, and education is mostly seen by the establishment as a "good business opportunity." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldenough Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Well, apparently, neither of you decided to look at my link to the article and chart demonstrating that Switzerland, Norway and Finland had higher per capita rates of mass murders. Here it is again for convenience: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/ Try looking at those figures in a different way....Unbelievable that someone would try to skew a favorable view from that.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted October 5, 2015 Author Share Posted October 5, 2015 (edited) Well, to put it bluntly, it's a target rich environment. Lots of warm bodies in a small space where they can't easily escape, plus it's a gun free zone so nobody's going to fight back. Let think about this. Do these shooters ever really try to escape? Do they go in thinking about getting out? Or is it more common they know they will be killed, or commit suicide? If so, being "gun free zone" is irrelevant, isn't it? These are not like bank robbers hoping to get away with something. It is not like drug dealers, or gang bangers. I think most of the time they have no expectation of getting out alive. I think the "gun free zone" argument doesn't hold water. Edited October 5, 2015 by jo56steph74 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted October 5, 2015 Author Share Posted October 5, 2015 Well, apparently, neither of you decided to look at my link to the article and chart demonstrating that Switzerland, Norway and Finland had higher per capita rates of mass murders. Here it is again for convenience: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/ I did. I saw 134 mass shootings for the USA and a handful for the other countries. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Same liberal thinkers that hate guns want legal drugs....Our president even pardons drug dealers cause they are non violent offenders....really???? how many die from drugs and violence related to drugs??(my sister was one). When you legitimize something, it takes away the black market, which is where the violence occurs. For example my ancestors were victims of the Black Patch War which nobody has ever heard of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Patch_Tobacco_Wars So, based on this violence alone, should we ban tobacco? How about government funded armed security in our schools for a start. Columbine had an armed guard, that did a lot of good huh. We would have to have a full time swat team in every school as well as metal detectors for every door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted October 5, 2015 Author Share Posted October 5, 2015 How about government funded armed security in our schools for a start. So, you'd be ok with each school having metal detectors, fenced entries, cops with guns protecting it? Do you see that as a solution? Do you see that anywhere in the world, right now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted October 5, 2015 Author Share Posted October 5, 2015 A little round up here. Who believes that there is nothing unusual about the USA? That we're just like anywhere else with regard to these mass shootings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Well, to put it bluntly, it's a target rich environment. Lots of warm bodies in a small space where they can't easily escape, plus it's a gun free zone so nobody's going to fight back.Let think about this. Do these shooters ever really try to escape? Do they go in thinking about getting out? Or is it more common they know they will be killed, or commit suicide? If so, being "gun free zone" is irrelevant, isn't it? These are not like bank robbers hoping to get away with something. It is not like drug dealers, or gang bangers. I think most of the time they have no expectation of getting out alive. I think the "gun free zone" argument doesn't hold water. How many attacks have you seen at a gun show or shooting match? It seems that shooters usually go in thinking they're going to inflict maximum casualties for a long time and eventually the cops will show up and that's it. They don't show up at places where they expect that a gunfight would break out instantly. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Well, apparently, neither of you decided to look at my link to the article and chart demonstrating that Switzerland, Norway and Finland had higher per capita rates of mass murders. Here it is again for convenience: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/ I did. I saw 134 mass shootings for the USA and a handful for the other countries. Yes. That's right. You raised the issue concerning the propensity of Americans to engage in mass murder. I believe it was you who even touted a claim that the per capita rate in the US was astronomical to that of other, civilized nations. You need to be consistent here. Per capita measurements mean something, and they are meaningful measurements. How do you take a lower per capita rate in the US and still claim it's worse here than in Norway? I didn't make these figures up. I am just the messenger, and the message from Norway is not as good for them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted October 5, 2015 Moderators Share Posted October 5, 2015 Well, apparently, neither of you decided to look at my link to the article and chart demonstrating that Switzerland, Norway and Finland had higher per capita rates of mass murders. Here it is again for convenience: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/ Yeah I read it, here is their correction at the bottom: "EDITOR’S NOTE, June 22, 2015: We heard from several of you regarding Obama's use of the word "frequency," and that frequency could refer to the incidents of mass shootings, not deaths as we examined. Looking at Obama's claim by incident, the United States has a higher rate of incidents than Finland, Norway and Switzerland." Lafayette, LA theater is not included in that data, it involved 2 deaths, 9 injured I believe. Why on earth would anybody use deaths and not include wounded in data on mass shootings? If an incident occurs closer to good medical attention it doesn't make the list because it involves less than 3/4 fatalities? That makes no sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted October 5, 2015 Moderators Share Posted October 5, 2015 Obama, politicians and government facilities are protected by guns.....But not our kids....which are more valuable???maybe the government agencies should set an example and give up their guns. Same liberal thinkers that hate guns want legal drugs....Our president even pardons drug dealers cause they are non violent offenders....really???? how many die from drugs and violence related to drugs??(my sister was one). A baby has a heart beat and its legal to kill that baby and even use its parts for research????even in government funded organizations that you and I pay for. How about government funded armed security in our schools for a start. This way the nut jobs aren't just going to slaughter the innocent and unprotected. Ill be down with my taxes funding that. This will create some jobs to boot. Crazy, angry people are only emboldened by weakness both socially and politically...they will never go away and your in fantasy land if you think they will. Bad guys will always get guns, will always do bad things. We cannot undo guns thus its important for good people to have them to keep balance. I do not own one gun but probably should and likely will in the near future. If our Government and citizens cannot be consistent among the many things that cost lives in our country the lets not carry on so every time something bad happens here. Lets ban cars, motorcycles, hunting, NASCAR, football...anything thats risky wrap ourselves in bubble wrap and hope for the best. Lets get strict on punishments for violent crimes and uphold the laws already in place first and foremost. We gotta start there it seems to me. Oh God. It was a great conversation while it lasted. Anything else you want to throw in there while you are at it? Same sex marriage, the Affordable Care Act? As far as wrapping ouselves up in bubble wrap, we don't allow that to be taught to our kids, they only hear about abstinence. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Well, apparently, neither of you decided to look at my link to the article and chart demonstrating that Switzerland, Norway and Finland had higher per capita rates of mass murders. Here it is again for convenience: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/ Yeah I read it, here is their correction at the bottom: "EDITOR’S NOTE, June 22, 2015: We heard from several of you regarding Obama's use of the word "frequency," and that frequency could refer to the incidents of mass shootings, not deaths as we examined. Looking at Obama's claim by incident, the United States has a higher rate of incidents than Finland, Norway and Switzerland." Lafayette, LA theater is not included in that data, it involved 2 deaths, 9 injured I believe. Why on earth would anybody use deaths and not include wounded in data on mass shootings? If an incident occurs closer to good medical attention it doesn't make the list because it involves less than 3/4 fatalities? That makes no sense to me. That raises an interesting point. What's worse? 2 incidents of 4 killings each, or 1 incident of 20 killings? I guess we need to settle on this before we can continue to argue our sides effectively. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted October 5, 2015 Moderators Share Posted October 5, 2015 What about a cross eyed lunatic who goes to a public place, fires 20 times, and hits nothing? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 What I don't understand is why is everyone focused on the mass killings and not everything else, which is way worse? Mass shootings are a drop in the bucket to all other types yet it is what everybody is afraid of. And the thing is, short of confisgation, you're not going to stop somebody who wants to do this. The cat is already out of the bag. Assault weapon bans don't stop anything. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts