View Full Version : Article: We’re 164 days into 2016. We’ve had 133 mass shootings.
Ultralight
6-13-16, 2:29pm
http://www.vox.com/a/mass-shootings-calendar-june-2016
Shocking numbers...
I got as far as their description of five "mass shootings" on a single day this year (Feb. 20). Three of those were instances in which only one person was killed. Not to take anything away from the tragedy of those deaths, but if we are going to look for real solutions to this problem we need some in depth analysis of the events. Headline grabbing sensationalism isn't going to help anyone.
Headline grabbing sensationalism isn't going to help anyone.
It helps the people baiting for clicks.
Q: how many firearms are there in civilian hands in America?
Q: how many of those are used in illegal shootings each year?
Q: How many land mines are in civilian hands in America?
Q: How many land mine deaths are there every year in America?
Q: How many exploding gas tank ford pintos are sold by Ford each year?
Q: How many new Ford Pintos have gas tanks that explode?
Q: why do fire fighters wear steel toe boots?
Q: How many toeless fire fighters are there?
Q: Who is sick to the puke point of being bullied into silence over the proliferation of guns in the US and the resulting THOUSANDS of gun deaths each year (illegal ones that number in the thousands)
yes, I know, second amendment and all....clearly time to rewrite the second amendment. The abuse of this 'right' has gone on long enough.
Oh, and by the way, there were several 'good guys' with guns there. Also time to find a different excuse.
Q: How many land mines are in civilian hands in America?
Q: How many land mine deaths are there every year in America?
Q: How many exploding gas tank ford pintos are sold by Ford each year?
Q: How many new Ford Pintos have gas tanks that explode?
Q: why do fire fighters wear steel toe boots?
Q: How many toeless fire fighters are there?
Q: Who is sick to the puke point of being bullied into silence over the proliferation of guns in the US and the resulting THOUSANDS of gun deaths each year (illegal ones that number in the thousands)
yes, I know, second amendment and all....clearly time to rewrite the second amendment. The abuse of this 'right' has gone on long enough.
Oh, and by the way, there were several 'good guys' with guns there. Also time to find a different excuse.
Would you be in favor of banning Democrats from owning guns? That would eliminate approximately 90% of gun violence.
If not, would you be in favor of going the other way banning gun free zones? That would eliminate the government mandated soft targets these folks seem to prefer.
Ultralight
6-13-16, 7:23pm
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-35048251
The number of Australia's mass shootings dropped from 11 in the decade before 1996, to zero in the years since.
And although the laws were designed specifically to reduce mass shootings, the rates of homicide and suicide have also come down since 1996.
Williamsmith
6-13-16, 7:47pm
Q: How many land mines are in civilian hands in America?
Q: How many land mine deaths are there every year in America?
Q: How many exploding gas tank ford pintos are sold by Ford each year?
Q: How many new Ford Pintos have gas tanks that explode?
Q: why do fire fighters wear steel toe boots?
Q: How many toeless fire fighters are there?
Q: Who is sick to the puke point of being bullied into silence over the proliferation of guns in the US and the resulting THOUSANDS of gun deaths each year (illegal ones that number in the thousands)
yes, I know, second amendment and all....clearly time to rewrite the second amendment. The abuse of this 'right' has gone on long enough.
Oh, and by the way, there were several 'good guys' with guns there. Also time to find a different excuse.
And if someone had just taken all the guns off of the Nazis, all those Jews wouldn't have died. Gimmie a break.
Would you be in favor of banning Democrats from owning guns? That would eliminate approximately 90% of gun violence.
??
Ultralight
6-13-16, 8:49pm
??
Perhaps he is implying that:
1. Most gun violence is black on black crime and since black vote overwhelmingly democrat then simply banning blacks from owning guns would cut gun violence way, way down.
2. But he also may have a meta-implication embedded in that statement as well, and that is that you know darn well that banning blacks from owning guns will not actually keep them from owning guns because they usually get their guns illegally.
3. It is also a rhetorical trap because banning blacks from owning guns is racist, which is something Democrats are against.
Remember, I am a good liberal. So I don't believe this stuff. I am just explaining what might be being implied or in the subtext of that statement.
Perhaps he is implying that:
1. Most gun violence is black on black crime and since black vote overwhelmingly democrat then simply banning blacks from owning guns would cut gun violence way, way down.
2. But he also may have a meta-implication embedded in that statement as well, and that is that you know darn well that banning blacks from owning guns will not actually keep them from owning guns because they usually get their guns illegally.
3. It is also a rhetorical trap because banning blacks from owning guns is racist, which is something Democrats are against.
Remember, I am a good liberal. So I don't believe this stuff. I am just explaining what might be being implied or in the subtext of that statement.
Or perhaps it's just that the vast majority of gun violence is perpetrated by Democrats in areas with very strict gun control laws which restrict potential victims ability to defend themselves.
If you really wanted to evaluate the subtext, you might be closer to the point if you saw the implication that restricting a citizens ability to defend themselves from an increasingly violent society, increases violence. You might then also imply that restricting this populations ability to defend themselves doesn't decrease the inherent violence within that society, it just creates more potential victims.
Or, baring those implications, you could just make it racial, that's always a crowd pleaser.
DocHolliday
6-13-16, 10:52pm
Would you be in favor of banning Democrats from owning guns?
This has been making the rounds the last few days:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PdUOmUNvZ0
A member of the DNC platform committee says that she believes that no one should own a gun. Turns out she's a billionaire, wonder why she doesn't put her money where her mouth is and take 999 million and buy as many guns as she can just to get them off the street..
Williamsmith
6-13-16, 11:44pm
This has been making the rounds the last few days:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PdUOmUNvZ0
A member of the DNC platform committee says that she believes that no one should own a gun. Turns out she's a billionaire, wonder why she doesn't put her money where her mouth is and take 999 million and buy as many guns as she can just to get them off the street..
Self defense is obviously not a right to her. I'm pretty sure the LGBT community is not too impressed with governments ability to protect them from being slaughtered by Islamic Terrorists who believe their lifestyle is worthy of death. Long lines at the gun stores this week. If I Owned a gun store, I would have a LGBT discount day. Free memberships to the NRA.
Williamsmith
6-14-16, 5:27am
The demogoguery begins. Clinton makes renewed call for "assault weapons" ban. This will drive countless people to gun stores to hoard semi automatic long rifles. Stupid with a capital "S". Might as well go door to door and hand them out and then try to figure out how you can get them all back. Well, Hitler figured it out but there wasn't anything left of freedom and liberty.
Ultralight
6-14-16, 7:13am
Or perhaps it's just that the vast majority of gun violence is perpetrated by Democrats in areas with very strict gun control laws which restrict potential victims ability to defend themselves.
If you really wanted to evaluate the subtext, you might be closer to the point if you saw the implication that restricting a citizens ability to defend themselves from an increasingly violent society, increases violence. You might then also imply that restricting this populations ability to defend themselves doesn't decrease the inherent violence within that society, it just creates more potential victims.
Or, baring those implications, you could just make it racial, that's always a crowd pleaser.
Take it easy, amigo. I am not anti-gun. haha
The demogoguery begins. Clinton makes renewed call for "assault weapons" ban. This will drive countless people to gun stores to hoard semi automatic long rifles. Stupid with a capital "S". Might as well go door to door and hand them out and then try to figure out how you can get them all back. Well, Hitler figured it out but there wasn't anything left of freedom and liberty.
I don't understand why republicans get all bent out of shape every time democratic politicians start talking about gun control. It encourages countless people to go out and buy guns. Isn't that supposed to be a good thing?
iris lilies
6-14-16, 10:22am
I don't understand why republicans get all bent out of shape every time democratic politicians start talking about gun control. It encourages countless people to go out and buy guns. Isn't that supposed to be a good thing?
No. For me, gun ownership is a neutral whether or not someone should have one. I don't care.
Like dogs. I don't care if people have dogs or not. But if you HAVE a dog you had better take care of it. Same with guns. Be responsible with what you have.
Williamsmith
6-14-16, 10:43am
Reasonable people are for responsible safe firearms ownership that is born out of the desire to possess a firearm for its usefulness in sporting or utilitarian self defense purposes. Not born out of fear that the government will take it away from otherwise law abiding citizens.
Or perhaps it's just that the vast majority of gun violence is perpetrated by Democrats in areas with very strict gun control laws which restrict potential victims ability to defend themselves.
If you really wanted to evaluate the subtext, you might be closer to the point if you saw the implication that restricting a citizens ability to defend themselves from an increasingly violent society, increases violence. You might then also imply that restricting this populations ability to defend themselves doesn't decrease the inherent violence within that society, it just creates more potential victims.
Or, baring those implications, you could just make it racial, that's always a crowd pleaser.
Oh baloney! I didn't realize part of the booking process in the police station was political party identification.
This BS is the very kind of bullying I was talking about.
Countries with very few guns and strict gun laws have very little gun crime. Imagine that. Low gun ownership means low gun crime...and don't give me that bull about 'cities with strict gun laws' blah blah blah. The gun laws and restrictions need to be universal, as in the WHOLE COUNTRY. Not just some 5 square mile area as if people won't go 6 miles to buy/steal/trade for their guns. That's a straw man argument.
So is the 'protecting themselves' argument. Do you realize how very few people actually 'protect' themselves with their guns? Do you realize how many people shoot innocent people while 'protecting' themselves?
Every day 48 CHILDREN are shot in this country. Murders, suicides, accidental... and everyday 7 of them die. Seven. Every. Day.
I realize this means nothing to you. Or the NRA. Hell, the NRA is positively giddy whenever a mass shooting happens. As someone here said, they line up to buy guns.
But I don't know why I even bother.
The day we accepted 24 kindergartners as collateral damage in our quest to have more guns is the day we gave up.
Ultralight
6-14-16, 12:19pm
No new laws will ever be signed. The issue is moot.
Liberals ought to know they have been beat soundly and forever.
DocHolliday
6-14-16, 6:45pm
A NY Daily News writers shoots an AR-15 and lives to tell about it:
"It feels like a bazooka — and sounds like a cannon."
"Not in my hands. I’ve shot pistols before, but never something like an AR-15. Squeeze lightly on the trigger and the resulting explosion of firepower is humbling and deafening (even with ear protection).
The recoil bruised my shoulder. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary case of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/firing-ar-15-horrifying-dangerous-loud-article-1.2673201
And this is what passes for "journalism" in NY...
Good thing for the shooter he could get to an AR-15 before he chickened out or had a change of heart.
What exactly is the intended use of an AR-15 other than mass casualties? I don't have strong feelings about gun ownership but why do we need these types of weapons in the general public's hands at all? I don't get a culture that even tolerates this.
What exactly is the intended use of an AR-15 other than mass casualties? I don't have strong feelings about gun ownership but why do we need these types of weapons in the general public's hands at all? I don't get a culture that even tolerates this.
I think the intended purpose of an AR-15 is to be feared by people who don't know what an AR-15 is. It is designed to look similar to a military M-16, although most people use it as a varmint gun.
By the way, the Orlando shooter did not have an AR-15, though it remains the weapon of choice by those who wish to ban 'assault rifles' without knowing exactly how to define one.
A NY Daily News writers shoots an AR-15 and lives to tell about it:
"It feels like a bazooka — and sounds like a cannon."
"Not in my hands. I’ve shot pistols before, but never something like an AR-15. Squeeze lightly on the trigger and the resulting explosion of firepower is humbling and deafening (even with ear protection).
The recoil bruised my shoulder. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary case of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/firing-ar-15-horrifying-dangerous-loud-article-1.2673201
And this is what passes for "journalism" in NY...
That guy would never make it through military basic training, not if they still fire automatic weapons such as the M-16 or god forbid the M-60.
Williamsmith
6-14-16, 7:51pm
I find the NY Daily News reporters description not only laughable but intentionally misleading. An AR-15 does not feel like a bazooka or sound like a cannon. In fact, it has a rather mild report and an easily tolerated recoil. I don't quite know how a firearm can humble you unless it is a difficult shooter and hard to get on target with, and the AR-15 is none of that. The Thompsom M1A1 or Tommy Gun of WWII or the gangster era is all of that. We still had a few of these when I first entered Law Enforcement.
A bruised shoulder would definitely be a possibility from firing multiple rounds of OO Buckshot or rifled slug from a Remington shotgun or a handful rounds from a 30.06 bolt action rifle but not an AR-15. The ejected shells most certainly do not fly past ones face while shooting as the engineer who designed it intelligently discharged the hot shells out of the shooters way to the right a fair distance.
I know the smell of gun powder (which is rightly named black powder) and it does have a distinct sulfurous smell because it is made of sulfur products but entirely different is the smokeless powder of today's firearms. It makes me wonder if this guy was even near a real firearms range.
The difference between a live round being discharged and a bomb going off is like the difference between hitting a cement wall in your car at five miles an hour and one hundred miles an hour. HE more likely suffers PTSD, anxiety or irritability from Starbucks running out of his favorite caffeine drink than something a firearm did.
As far as the gun goes, I prefer a firearm that performs just as well but looks less tactical so as not to garner undue attention from a subjective population. I also prefer more intuitive mechanics. Like the Ruger Mini 14.
What exactly is the intended use of an AR-15 other than mass casualties?
Well, the AR-15 has been around since 1958. Its modular design and flexibility have made it the most popular rifle in American over the past few decades, as by swapping parts you can change calibers from .22LR to 50BMG in seconds. Because of the ease of reconfiguration of sights, stocks, triggers, and other parts it is sort of now the Mr. Potato Head of rifles.
They are used for target shooting, plinking, other sporting activities, hunting, defense, pest control, and so on. One rifle can be set up in minutes for whatever purpose you need.
Plus you can make them on 3D printers, which is sort of handy.
Ultralight
6-14-16, 8:09pm
A NY Daily News writers shoots an AR-15 and lives to tell about it:
"It feels like a bazooka — and sounds like a cannon."
"Not in my hands. I’ve shot pistols before, but never something like an AR-15. Squeeze lightly on the trigger and the resulting explosion of firepower is humbling and deafening (even with ear protection).
The recoil bruised my shoulder. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary case of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/firing-ar-15-horrifying-dangerous-loud-article-1.2673201
And this is what passes for "journalism" in NY...
1. This sounds kind of... made up.
2. (And this is for all the right-wingers) Do you not think that gun culture in America is twisted and perverse?
1. This sounds kind of... made up.
Yup.
2. (And this is for all the right-wingers) Do you not think that gun culture in America is twisted and perverse?
Nope.
Ultralight
6-14-16, 8:20pm
Nope.
Really? Not even the conspicuous consumption of it all?
Really? Not even the conspicuous consumption of it all?
Ever look at the freeway during rush hour, or visit a mall, or drive past a coal-fired power plant in the middle of Navajo lands, or see an aircraft carrier sitting in port? Bigger fish to fry, no need to worry my blood pressure about it.
Or perhaps it's just that the vast majority of gun violence is perpetrated by Democrats in areas with very strict gun control laws . . .
thugs and gang-bangers and robbers are registered Democrats? They take time off on their 18th birthday to make sure to register to vote?
No new laws will ever be signed. The issue is moot.
Liberals ought to know they have been beat soundly and forever.
Like other issues, this one goes across liberal/conservative lines. I know of people who are socially very liberal but like and own guns and want no change in gun laws; likewise, people who consider themselves social conservatives but are heartsick over this continuing gun violence.
So I wouldn't be so sure this is not going to be changed by some degree. How about we start with mandating a cross-check of names on the No Fly List against gun purchase applications?
Williamsmith
6-14-16, 10:26pm
The No Fly List is notoriously inaccurate. Plenty of law abiding citizens are harassed with it.
So lets start by figuring out how to make the no fly list more accurate and doing cross checks of gun buyers with it. Sounds more reasonable than deporting muslim american citizens which seems to be about the best idea i've heard from republicans on this issue.
iris lilies
6-14-16, 11:03pm
So lets start by figuring out how to make the no fly list more accurate and doing cross checks of gun buyers with it. Sounds more reasonable than deporting muslim american citizens which seems to be about the best idea i've heard from republicans on this issue.
What do people have to do in your mind to get on the no fly list? Commercial airlines refusing to carry someone on a plane doesnt seem to me to be as big a deal as denying 2nd amendment rights.
Is the no fly list open for all to see who is on it?
I have serious issues with using the no-fly list for, well, anything at all.
Something about due process, transparency, rule-of-law.
Secret star chambers rendering secret judgments about which American citizens get to travel or exercise other rights seems very very un-American to me.
So lets start by figuring out how to make the no fly list more accurate and doing cross checks of gun buyers with it. Sounds more reasonable than deporting muslim american citizens which seems to be about the best idea i've heard from republicans on this issue.
Funny how it's been decided that owning a religion should be grounds for being suspect but owning high power weaponry is not.
A NY Daily News writers shoots an AR-15 and lives to tell about it:
"It feels like a bazooka — and sounds like a cannon."
"Not in my hands. I’ve shot pistols before, but never something like an AR-15. Squeeze lightly on the trigger and the resulting explosion of firepower is humbling and deafening (even with ear protection).
The recoil bruised my shoulder. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary case of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/firing-ar-15-horrifying-dangerous-loud-article-1.2673201
And this is what passes for "journalism" in NY...
I just took the time to read the entire article and was struck by the following:
Even in semi-automatic mode, it is very simple to squeeze off two dozen rounds before you even know what has happened. In fully automatic mode, it doesn’t take any imagination to see dozens of bodies falling in front of your barrel.
Now, I don't know if he made up the story and just isn't aware, or if he's intentionally misleading his preferred audience, but the AR-15 doesn't have a fully automatic mode.
I get really tired of people always referring to the second amendment, when it was written in a time that was so very different from now. I'm sure the writers of the Bill of Rights are rolling over in their graves, over how it is interpreted in today's world.
I have serious issues with using the no-fly list for, well, anything at all.
Something about due process, transparency, rule-of-law.
Secret star chambers rendering secret judgments about which American citizens get to travel or exercise other rights seems very very un-American to me.
It doesn't say you can't travel, it just says you can't get on a plane. Take the train, drive a car or motorcycle, walk, bicycle, hitchhike, whatever. And I know 2 people whose names turned up on the list. They got it cleared up fairly quickly and went back to being frequent flyers. Inconvenience is a small price to pay.
It's also time to fund CDC studies related to gun violence. According to an article in CNN, in 1996 Congress enacted a provision in the law that essentially barred the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from funding these studies. President Obama signed an executive order lifting the ban in 2013, after the Sandy Hook massacre, but Congress has since blocked funding.
Hence the frustration of Sandy Hook parents, and now the Orlando families I'm sure. How many massacres will it take?
What do people have to do in your mind to get on the no fly list? Commercial airlines refusing to carry someone on a plane doesnt seem to me to be as big a deal as denying 2nd amendment rights.
Is the no fly list open for all to see who is on it?
Commercial airlines don't put people on the no fly list. The government does. And no, it's not open for people to see, which as bae pointed out, is a problem. Blocking people on it from purchasing guns would, if nothing else, be a step in the direction towards transparency since now people who think they might be on the list would have a second way of finding out that's easier to do than the current method.
iris lilies
6-15-16, 9:47am
Funny how it's been decided that owning a religion should be grounds for being suspect but owning high power weaponry is not.
See, thats the point--humans can use anythhing--religion and guns--irresponsibly. DO all humans use all of their stuff irresponsibly? Nope.
iris lilies
6-15-16, 9:58am
Commercial airlines don't put people on the no fly list. The government does. And no, it's not open for people to see, which as bae pointed out, is a problem. Blocking people on it from purchasing guns would, if nothing else, be a step in the direction towards transparency since now people who think they might be on the list would have a second way of finding out that's easier to do than the current method.
Oh i know that the gubmnt places names on the list, but it is the commercial airlines that use it.
I dont like what seems like nebulous criteria for being on the list. But I can live with squishy criteria because it is a private service being denied, riding in a plane. Besides,theoretically someone on a no fly list could charter their own private plane if they needed to fly.
denying someone constitutional rights based on squishiness is extremely problematic.
iris lilies
6-15-16, 10:05am
I just took the time to read the entire article and was struck by the following:
Now, I don't know if he made up the story and just isn't aware, or if he's intentionally misleading his preferred audience, but the AR-15 doesn't have a fully automatic mode.
The author may be using the false fact given out by the President of the United States that the Sandy Hook shooter used an automatic weapon, his AR 15. If the President says it, it must be so.
ToomuchStuff
6-15-16, 10:41am
Funny how it's been decided that owning a religion should be grounds for being suspect but owning high power weaponry is not.
And yet we have also had the discussion combining the two. The police force where the chief put god on everything, and how would he react to individuals, who talk to things that aren't there, possessing firearms.
So the only way to find out if I'm on the no fly list us to pay for a ticket and then be denied the ability to use it?
So the only way to find out if I'm on the no fly list us to pay for a ticket and then be denied the ability to use it?Yep, although no one has a 'right' to air travel so no due process infringement results. Using the same methods and criteria to deny someone a constitutional right would be so beyond the pale that I can't imagine reasonable people advocating for it, yet many do.
Yep, although no one has a 'right' to air travel so no due process infringement results.
I was of the opinion that several Federal courts have recently found that the no-fly list violated due-process, and ordered that the list procedures be changed to be in compliance with the Constitution. The ACLU has been pushing these cases through the system. Which of course takes time to finalize, as you have to have a timely issue, get several different Federal courts to render *different* opinions, then get the Supremes to figure it out.
It seems absurd on the face of it though that the Federal government has any constitutional authority to deny me a means of travel ("driving is a privilege, not a right...") without due process.
People advocating for the expansion of the use of the no-fly list present more of a threat to my life and liberty than terrorists. ("Bob is on the no-fly list, I guess he'll have to wear a little star on his clothing. That way innocent merchants in Bob's community can decide if they want to sell the terrorist scum food and water, or provide him medical care...")
No thanks.
I was of the opinion that several Federal courts have recently found that the no-fly list violated due-process, and ordered that the list procedures be changed to be in compliance with the Constitution. The ACLU has been pushing these cases through the system. Which of course takes time to finalize, as you have to have a timely issue, get several different Federal courts to render *different* opinions, then get the Supremes to figure it out.
Yes, that's true. I believe the first court rulings in the ACLU's favor occurred 5 or 6 years ago. Although as I understand it, the basis of the court cases and subsequent rulings have less to do with someone having the ability to board an aircraft than being placed on a government list which may have wide ranging effects.
its just so wrong to not inform people that they are on the no fly list. some people save up money for years for a big trip - and then to be turned away and lose all that money and that dream. it's ridiculous. they could at least tell them.
iris lilies
6-15-16, 1:41pm
its just so wrong to not inform people that they are on the no fly list. some people save up money for years for a big trip - and then to be turned away and lose all that money and that dream. it's ridiculous. they could at least tell them.
They aren't gonna. The secret is part of the power the gubmnt holds.
Never forget what you lose when Nanny G is protecting you, and a pleasure vacatin is the least of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LORVfnFtcH0
Life has changed. The constitution must change. We've done it before, we can do it again.
The second amendment is about a militia. A WELL REGULATED MILITIA. It was written to make sure the new US could stand up an army if it needed to.
And no, Washington didn't say we needed to arm ourselves against the government.
People advocating for the expansion of the use of the no-fly list present more of a threat to my life and liberty than terrorists. ("Bob is on the no-fly list, I guess he'll have to wear a little star on his clothing. That way innocent merchants in Bob's community can decide if they want to sell the terrorist scum food and water, or provide him medical care...")
No thanks.
+1
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.