I guess it didn't even merit a thread this time...

Right? Left? Centre?
Political news and debate.
Put your views and articles up for debate and destruction!
User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: I guess it didn't even merit a thread this time...

Post by Scooter »

Image
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9015
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
Location: Surrounded by Trumptards in Rockland, WI – a small rural village in La Crosse County

Re: I guess it didn't even merit a thread this time...

Post by Bicycle Bill »

Ahhh ... there's the rub.  Just what is a 'mass shooting'?  Not even the US government has a definition or standard as to what is considered a mass shooting (maybe that's so they can ignore it better — if they don't define it, it doesn't exist, right?).

TIME, which MGMcAnick linked to, defined a mass shooting as "a shooting a public place in which at least three victims were killed".  The Gun Violence Archive (a non-profit that tracks shootings in the US) defines a mass shooting as "a single incident in which four or more people, not including the shooter, are 'shot and/or killed' at 'the same general time and location' ".  Note this does not restrict the shooting to a public place, and that it is based on killed and injured, not merely number of dead.

So using the GVA's definition, the 251 number is almost spot on.  Here's a list of the 255 shootings they have recorded for 2019 so far.  To put this into perspective, August 5 is the 217th day of the year, meaning that by their standards, the US has averaged almost 1.2 mass shootings PER DAY this year.  Given that rate, we can expect at least 172 more before the year is over.

Oh ... I just thought I'd toss this in here as well.  Doesn't necessarily have to be a mass shooting, either, to totally fuck up someone else's world.
Chicago shootings leave 40 shot, 3 fatally; Mt. Sinai Hospital closes emergency room
A West Side hospital is not accepting any more patients to its emergency room after a violent weekend in which forty people were shot, three fatally, across the city.
(as reported by WLS-TV in Chicago; later updated to 59 shot and 7 dead)
I hope there are enough thoughts and prayers to go around.
Image
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: I guess it didn't even merit a thread this time...

Post by Scooter »

Image
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

Burning Petard
Posts: 4050
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Near Bear, Delaware

Re: I guess it didn't even merit a thread this time...

Post by Burning Petard »

There is no generally agreed definition of 'mass shootings' The major Philly news media have informally agreed to call it any single incident with four or more people shot. I would make a WAG that there have been a hundred of those in Philly already this year.

snailgate

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18299
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: I guess it didn't even merit a thread this time...

Post by BoSoxGal »

That's erroneous; as a practical matter, it's widely accepted and agreed by federal and nonprofit agencies alike that a mass shooting is 4 or more victims, whether killed or wounded - not including the shooter(s).

eta: The FBI defines a mass murder as a killing of 4 or more people without a 'cooling off' period in between killings - the FBI doesn't define a mass shooting. The United States' Congressional Research Service has adopted that threshold to define a mass shooting, and it has been widely adopted by those agencies both public and private which track and study mass shootings.

Here is an exhaustively researched nonpartisan independent source for tracking gun violence in the US - the methodology of how they track incidents is clearly explained in a tab to the left of the page under Menu: About us.

They put the mass shootings total at 255 thus far in 2019.

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
Last edited by BoSoxGal on Tue Aug 06, 2019 1:42 am, edited 4 times in total.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18299
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: I guess it didn't even merit a thread this time...

Post by BoSoxGal »

Scooter wrote:Image
Easy to get shit done in the absence of a 2nd Amendment right and a NRA that spends millions (of largely gun industry dollars) lobbying the governing body to block firearm legislation. New Zealand has a National Rifle Association - apparently they've considered changing their name to avoid being associated with the American NRA. They don't lobby and aren't political - they just involve themselves with gun safety and governing the rules of target shooting competitions - which I think is pretty much what our NRA was like years ago, when it wholeheartedly supported limiting gun ownership to responsible persons only.

Image

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/worl ... aland.html

We need to repeal the 2nd Amendment. It should be on the agenda after we get Cheeto Mussolini out in 2020.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8545
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: I guess it didn't even merit a thread this time...

Post by Sue U »

It's not a mental health issue.
It's not a social media issue.
It's not a video game issue.
It's not a rap music issue.
It's a gun issue.

As I have said now for years:
The problem is
TOO MANY GUNS
TOO READILY AVAILABLE TO
TOO MANY PEOPLE.


Repealing the Second Amendment and tightly restricting gun ownership is the most effective solution. Short of that, banning military-type (AR/AK) weapons and high-capacity magazines, requiring licensing and registration of all firearms, mandatory safety training and thorough background checks are literally the least we can do.
GAH!

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9015
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
Location: Surrounded by Trumptards in Rockland, WI – a small rural village in La Crosse County

Re: I guess it didn't even merit a thread this time...

Post by Bicycle Bill »

BoSoxGal wrote:Here is an exhaustively researched nonpartisan independent source for tracking gun violence in the US - the methodology of how they track incidents is clearly explained in a tab to the left of the page under Menu: About us.

They put the mass shootings total at 255 thus far in 2019.

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
I'm sorry BSG has me on ignore because she got her undies in a twist over my post from earlier in this thread (although I'm not sorry for posting it).  Otherwise she might have seen that I had linked to exactly the same source as she had almost an hour earlier.
Image
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20706
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: I guess it didn't even merit a thread this time...

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Misheard message:

“We must recognize that my Twitter account has provided a dangerous avenue for disturbed minds and encouraged demented acts,“ Trump said. “We must shine light on the dark recesses of my heart and stop mass murders before they start.”

I think that's what he said.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8545
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: I guess it didn't even merit a thread this time...

Post by Sue U »

Trump's remarks yesterday could not have been more disingenuous or hypocritical; it was astounding.

"Our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy," said the man who literally began his presidential campaign calling Mexicans rapists and drug-dealing criminals and demanding a ban on all Muslims entering the United States. "Hatred warps the mind, ravages the heart and devours the soul," said the guy who regularly whips his rally-goers into an angry, violent frenzy with blatant lies about both immigrants and his political opponents, insisting that Americans who disagree with him should go back where they came from, especially if they are ethnic minorities.

What's the matter with you libtards? Can't you see the real victim here is Donald Trump, who has been treated so unfairly by the fake news media and all the socialists in Congress?
GAH!

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: I guess it didn't even merit a thread this time...

Post by Scooter »

Image
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: I guess it didn't even merit a thread this time...

Post by Big RR »

Repealing the Second Amendment and tightly restricting gun ownership is the most effective solution. Short of that, banning military-type (AR/AK) weapons and high-capacity magazines, requiring licensing and registration of all firearms, mandatory safety training and thorough background checks are literally the least we can do.
sue--I am with you 100% (although, I seriously doubt we could generate sufficient support to repeal the second amendment, but that's another thread), but let me ask you a question regarding the "military type weapons"; so far as I have seen, they are not any different functionally from any similar hunting rifle other than in their appearance--many semi-automatic hunting rifles can fire the same rounds just as quickly and effectively. To me, it makes little sense to just ban some weapons based on their appearance when anyone who wants to can go out and get the same weapon (at least functionally) in a non-banned form. I know you have looked into this issue considerably, and I'll ask you, are there functional differences I am not aware of? Those differences may exist, but I have not seen them pointed out by the people who are in a position to know them.

Indeed, this lackj of knowledge on my part (and the lack of resolution of it in most reporting I have read) is one of the problems with the way people often treat this (and other issues--when you discuss what can/should be done, you need to have the experts at the table (in this case, people who understand and know about firearms (much as we should have teachers and other educators at the table when we discuss educations issues and problems).

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: I guess it didn't even merit a thread this time...

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

Per the Guardian

Trump plans to visit El Paso tomorrow as it mourns the loss of 22 members of its community, but the president’s reelection campaign still owes the city more than $500,000.

Trump held a February rally at an El Paso arena, and according to the Center for Public Integrity, the campaign has an unpaid balance to the city of $569,204.

“It’s ridiculous and unconscionable. The city of El Paso is an economically challenged community,” said El Paso County Commissioner Dave Stout, who “adamantly” opposes Trump visiting.

“He’s going to be throwing salt into the wound -- a very, very deep wound,” Stout said. “And this community needs healing, not Donald Trump.”

ex-khobar Andy
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018

Re: I guess it didn't even merit a thread this time...

Post by ex-khobar Andy »

I'll look forward to sue's (probably much more informed than mine) response, Big RR. But I offer this: I am sure that much of the appeal of the military style AN AR AK style weapon is its appearance and less due to its capability. If indeed they and many hunting rifles have similar functions (and I really don't have any experience - the last time I shot a rifle at a target, Sgt Major Cornelius told me I was wasting ammunition - how humiliating) I think it's possible that many of those subhumans who buy these things, do so precisely because they they can point to them and show what a superior type of man he is, because he can handle this bad-ass rifle. Those of the same disposition and more $$$ will of course buy a Ferrari to do the supermarket run.

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: I guess it didn't even merit a thread this time...

Post by Big RR »

I thought of that Andy, but I think if we are trying to avoid repeats of these mass shootings, we have to enact laws that will have a definite effect on them. If these "subhumans" can just go into a gun store and buy the same rifle (from a functional sense), they will. Sure, they'd rather look like Rambo, but they'll use what they can get--or at least that's what I think. And as any ban is likely to be very divisive politically, we should be certain whatever we do should result in some curtailment of these mass shootings.

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8545
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: I guess it didn't even merit a thread this time...

Post by Sue U »

I am certainly no expert in firearms, but I understand the defining features of an "assault weapon" are generally rapid-fire semi-automatic (or automatic) operation, a pistol grip, removable magazine with high-capacity capability, and a collapsible stock, designed for use in military combat. High velocity ammunition also seems to be a thing characteristic of such weapons.

While the technical operation may not differ all that much from a more traditional hunting rifle, I am of the opinion that it is precisely the military-style design that makes rifles like the AR-15 and AK-47 the weapon of choice for the (mostly young) men who become mass shooters. I have no scientific studies to back me up, but I suspect their predictable choice of a military-style weapon has a great deal more to do with their self-image than a thoughtful analysis of the product itself; they see themselves to be at war with something, and therefore choose a gun that makes them look and feel like a warrior.

But as I have said (again, repeatedly), a ban on "assault weapons," however they are defined, is only a baby step in addressing gun violence, the vast majority of which involves use of handguns. Since the fundamental problem is too many guns too readily available to too many people, wholly eliminating an entire "category" of weapons (military-style rifles) can be expected to have at least some effect on supply and access. However, it is only a stop-gap, band-aid measure on the way to more serious and effective gun control.
GAH!

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: I guess it didn't even merit a thread this time...

Post by Big RR »

Sue--while I agree anecdotal evidence does suggest that the would be mass shooters are attracted to these weapons (and I would agree likely for the reasons you suggest having to do with some self image reasons), I do think these people would be smart enough to move to the equivalent hunting rifle if the so-called assault weapon were banned, and that the results would be the same. I have no reason to think eliminating this category of weapon would have any effect on fire arm avaialability.

Personally, absent a second amendment repeal, and I seriously doubt such a repeal would be ratified by the requisite number of states (hell, we couldn't even get the equal rights amendment ratified), I think the best route would be to have robust background checks and limitation to access in cases of concern; we should also try to get responsible gun owners involved in the debate to see what types of weapons might be excluded from public access based on their characteristics (and not all gun owners ore knee jerk NRA supporters and I'd bet would welcome a serious dialog). But banning a type of weapon that would have little or no effect on gun violence is akin to the crap that passes for security screening in the airports--something slow and inconvenient and of little real value--but it makes for good theater to convince people we are doing something.

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8545
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: I guess it didn't even merit a thread this time...

Post by Sue U »

Big RR wrote:Sue--while I agree anecdotal evidence does suggest that the would be mass shooters are attracted to these weapons (and I would agree likely for the reasons you suggest having to do with some self image reasons), I do think these people would be smart enough to move to the equivalent hunting rifle if the so-called assault weapon were banned, and that the results would be the same. I have no reason to think eliminating this category of weapon would have any effect on fire arm avaialability.
The science begs to differ:
METHODS: Mass shooting data for 1981 to 2017 were obtained from three well-documented, referenced, and open-source sets of data, based on media reports. We calculated the yearly rates of mass shooting fatalities as a proportion of total firearm homicide deaths and per US population. We compared the 1994 to 2004 federal ban period to non-ban periods, using simple linear regression models for rates and a Poison model for counts with a year variable to control for trend. The relative effects of the ban period were estimated with odds ratios.

RESULTS: Assault rifles accounted for 430 or 85.8% of the total 501 mass-shooting fatalities reported (95% confidence interval, 82.8-88.9) in 44 mass-shooting incidents. Mass shootings in the United States accounted for an increasing proportion of all firearm-related homicides (coefficient for year, 0.7; p = 0.0003), with increment in year alone capturing over a third of the overall variance in the data (adjusted R = 0.3). In a linear regression model controlling for yearly trend, the federal ban period was associated with a statistically significant 9 fewer mass shooting related deaths per 10,000 firearm homicides (p = 0.03). Mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the federal ban period (relative rate, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.39).

CONCLUSION: Mass-shooting related homicides in the United States were reduced during the years of the federal assault weapons ban of 1994 to 2004.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30188421
GAH!

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: I guess it didn't even merit a thread this time...

Post by Scooter »

Image
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: I guess it didn't even merit a thread this time...

Post by Big RR »

I have a problem trying to decipher what statistics they are referring to, as they say that mass shootings have increased overall, but that the likelihood of a fatality was recued during the ban. however, on the linked page, there is a link to a JAMA study that said enhanced background checks reduced overall firearm fatalities, while specific weapons bans (like assault rifles) had not discernible effect. The only way to make sense of these is to get the full report and statistics, which do not appear to be available, and to see what adjustments were made for what purpose(s). there are probably a lot of studies that are available, and these should be scrutinized taken into account in deciding how to proceed.

Again, I have no dog in this fight as I own no firearms of any type--assault or otherwise, but I would hope that the debate would be centered on the methods which would achieve the most demonstrable positive results, rather than getting bogged down in feel good measures.

Scooter--I agree, the Sudafed ban is pretty silly, but that's the way government addresses problems; next they'll seek to poison the Sudafed supply--remember paraquat and spraying of marijuana fields?

Post Reply