Yet another mass shooting in America

The USA, home of the free and land of the deranged mass shooter.

No doubt usual vigils, well meaning words, heart felt condolences etc given out but ultimately naff all be done to alleviate the scourge of gun crime.
What's the NRA line, only way to deal with this is to arm more people?

Yep that's really working out fine and dandy....

If Sandy Hook wasnt enough to make them change then nothing will be enough.

Its going to take generations for America to get over its obsession with firearms, so unfortunately things like this are going to continue to be a daily part of life.

I'd love though to hear the views from any Americans who frequent this forum(are there any?) especially if they are in favour of guns specifically ones for self defence rather than target/hunting.

mountain man wrote:I'd love though to hear the views from any Americans who frequent this forum(are there any?) especially if they are in favour of guns specifically ones for self defence rather than target/hunting.

Of course as a new Country.....Firearms were considered necessary in case of Government tyranny........

Little known fact....Over a million people use guns every year in the USA in self defence and many say without the gun they almost certainly would have died...

2021.........1,029,000
................162,000 said they would be dead without one......

The average yearly  homicide gun related death is 11,000.....

Not to say I am a fan of guns......I'm not but there is a case.....As with that Sc**bag who killed schoolkids in Scotland....If someone is adamant they want to commit atrocity will they be stopped ???

Worth remembering The US has nearly 300m more people than the UK.....Going to be more nutters right ??

That beautiful girl killed by the Cop in London...Does she die with a gun in her possession.....Who knows ???

We have guns...Amnesty means only the good people turn them in.....Founding Fathers are considered sacred as is the Amendment....Senators and Congressmen/Women are bought and owned by the lobby anyway.

I'm anti-gun.....But.....They aren't going anywhere..  

OK but do you REALLY need a semi automatic assault rifle?

The NRA and a lot of Republican politicians oppose background further checks etc to at least prevent even more guns issued to unsuitable owners.

The way I see it is currently there is no end in sight for these mass shooting and doing nothing is not going to help prevent them. It's no good just hoping it won't happen again as I guarantee it will, hence action is needed. Wont stop all the nutters for sure but if it stops just one then surely worth doing something.

Surely no-one can deny there is a MASSIVE problem with arms in USA and far stricter controls are needed.

Not sure on your figure of 11000, a quick search shows that in 2020(last year figures are available for) shows 45000 deaths from guns with 24300 being suicides and 19400 murders. Remaining number were by law enforcement etc or unproven cause etc. Anyway, crazy numbers whichever way you look at it.

mountain man wrote:OK but do you REALLY need a semi automatic assault rifle?

The NRA and a lot of Republican politicians oppose background further checks etc to at least prevent even more guns issued to unsuitable owners.

Not sure on your figure of 11000, a quick search shows that in 2020(last year figures are available for) shows 45000 deaths from guns with 24300 being suicides and 19400 murders. Remaining number were by law enforcement etc or unproven cause etc. Anyway, crazy numbers whichever way you look at it.

TBF I wrote the average yearly rate....

It's easy to regard this as a party issue and the Republicans are more in to restriction but the public is still undecided..

Washington post poll (2019) Doubt opinions have changed too much...

"Are you confident passing stricter gun laws would reduce mass shootings in this Country...

Democrats...60%
Republicans 40%

Why Democrats from swing seats are reluctant to go there...

Yep I'm not besmirching any politicians of any type, but generally Republicans are more in favour of firearms than Democrats broadly speaking.
However, as you say if someones seat is in doubt then views might change which is pretty tragic.

I'm an outsider looking in and I definitely not claiming to have answer to a very complex and divisive issue but we get news of this here in UK and find it hard to understand the mentality of those who point blank(no pun intended) refuse to contemplate any changes at all which might help matters.

I remember asking these questions and getting fairly thorough and reasoned explanations.   I am not American so I am not going to comment further except to say I rationalized it as "different peoples have different cultures and different traditions and different values". Ultimately it is up to the Americans, as it is up to other peoples to live life according to their own lived traditions, values and culture until they themselves decide to change. Anything else is a form of imperialism. Of course respectful discourse and discussion should not in itself be harmful and in my view should be encouraged.

So what were these thorough and reasoned explanations? Did they include why anyone would want and need assault rifles etc?
"Anything else is a form of imperialism"? What?

So UK is helping and you could say interferring in Ukraine/Russia war. Is this imperialism then?

Sadly a minority of people are always going to kill other people or themselves. Guns just make it a hell of a lot easier.

The USA is mostly safe, but looking at the stats relative to our standards absurdly dangerous. It isn't just the guns, its also other weapons (their stabbing rates are much higher than ours) and then there are the roads. Death rates in the USA are almost 4x higher than in the UK, and they have almost no roundabouts...

Fair point but usually road deaths are accidental not someone purposely going out to kill. Yes you can kill with a knive but mass killing unlikely. Guns make it so much easier. And assault rifles etc even more so.

The US is running at more than 1 mass shooting per day (i.e. 3 or more victims, excluding the shooter) this year. Obviously, things like the school shootings get most publicity, but these have become so normalised...
Death by shooting is now the most likely cause of death for under 18s, having overtaken car accidents.

As for changes in the law, the issue is that the SCOTUS is taking an ever more permissive interpretation of the 2nd amendment (as an individual right to keep and bear arms), and this is popular amonst a very vocal (and sizeable) minority, plus has the backing of the NRA, which contributes to a lot of politicians.

Changing amendments to the Constitution is possible, but it requires 2/3rds of Senators plus ratification by 2/3rds of individual states (i.e. 34 states - it doesn't matter whether these are high population state like California or 3 people and a mule like Wyoming). Basically, a snowballs chance in hell in the current US political climate of getting any meaningful constitutional change through regarding gun control.

There are some options regarding legislation - there was previously an assault weapons ban, which would outlaw the ownership of some of the types of weapon used in these mass shooting incidents, but much of it seems to be fiddling round the edges

The biggest problem is the wording of the second amendment. 2A purists cling to the words "shall not be infringed" and they use that against any and all arguments for stricter control.

Samo wrote:The biggest problem is the wording of the second amendment.  2A purists cling to the words "shall not be infringed" and they use that against any and all arguments for stricter control.

One might say a bigger problem is the GOP has the Supreme Court 5-4......

The Constitution can be amended....The 13th amendment abolished Slavery..The 19th amendment gave Women the vote......

But gun law is the SECOND amendment because of its importance....After freedom of speech, religion etc....

It's kind of sacred.

Kind of sacred and over 200 years out of date.

The whole reason for it is now null and void.

mountain man wrote: Kind of sacred and over 200 years out of date.

The whole reason for it is now null and void.

Not really..........If you sympathised with the South.....The Confederates wouldn't have lasted long in the Civil war with repeal of the second Amendment...After all the "Missouri Compromise" was never going to last.

Won't someone please think of the poor Confederates.

Gun owners in the US are not a part of a "well-regulated Militia". It's a BS justification.

Personally, I couldn't care less how many of them kill each other. I should, I know, but they won't do anything about this until they've hurt themselves enough to want it. Suggest that until, and unless, enough GOP Senators' pampered families etc are wiped out by deranged murderers, nothing will change.

navyblueshorts wrote:Gun owners in the US are not a part of a "well-regulated Militia". It's a BS justification.

Personally, I couldn't care less how many of them kill each other. I should, I know, but they won't do anything about this until they've hurt themselves enough to want it. Suggest that until, and unless, enough GOP Senators' pampered families etc are wiped out by deranged murderers, nothing will change.

I imagine the more gun lobby types get killed the more their mates will want to arm themselves....

Forgetting your insensitive remarks please give us a reasoned explanation on how to proceed with a gun-less utopia in the Land of the free..

You want good people to disarm while the slime of Society keep theirs ???......Or are you going to ask the murderers and drug dealers nicely to hand them over.....and then get bought and paid for by the NRA politicians to get a conscience and repeal the Constitution....

Could happen.....Just like Tranmere could win the Premership....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Gun owners in the US are not a part of a "well-regulated Militia". It's a BS justification.

Personally, I couldn't care less how many of them kill each other. I should, I know, but they won't do anything about this until they've hurt themselves enough to want it. Suggest that until, and unless, enough GOP Senators' pampered families etc are wiped out by deranged murderers, nothing will change.

I imagine the more gun lobby types get killed the more their mates will want to arm themselves....

Suspect you're correct with that. However, not my problem if they want to kill each other.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Forgetting your insensitive remarks please give us a reasoned explanation on how to proceed with a gun-less utopia in the Land of the free..

Aww, bless re. my remarks. I don't have to give, and have no interest in giving, you a plan for a gun-free Utopia in the U.S.A. Not my problem. As I said, they'll only change when enough people over there realise the idiocy of the situation. As long as they keep it over there in the meantime, good luck to them.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You want good people to disarm while the slime of Society keep theirs ???......Or are you going to ask the murderers and drug dealers nicely to hand them over.....and then get bought and paid for by the NRA politicians to get a conscience and repeal the Constitution....

Nice straw man argument, there. That's not what I suggested and you know it. You have legal, and armed, law enforcement and the military. Get them to take away firearms if they're deemed as illegal at some distant sometime never point in the future. In other words, get them to do what they're paid for should it come to it.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Could happen.....Just like Tranmere could win the Premership....

Tranmere will win the Premiership before the citizens of the good 'ol U.S. of A. realise the current position is untenable and utterly idiotic.

Given you're an American and more of an apparent expert on your Constitution etc than I'll ever be, why don't you explain how loads of private, ill-disciplined, untrained, unorganised gun owners are part of any "well-organized Militia" as referenced in the Second Amendment?

The idea of “bad guys will still have their guns” isnt the great argument you think it is. The vast majority of mass shootings arent done by “bad guys”. And the “bad guys” who’ll still have guns would be committing crimes regardless.

Samo wrote:The idea of “bad guys will still have their guns” isnt the great argument you think it is. The vast majority of mass shootings arent done by “bad guys”. And the “bad guys” who’ll still have guns would be committing crimes regardless.

True, most mass shooting seem to be ordinary people with some imagined or real slight they have taken offence to so go back to their old school and kill a load of kids. *

*Substitute school for work place, office etc as required.

The problem some have in discussing politics, geopolitics and different cultures (including religion) is the tendency to get abusive, using ad hominems directly or indirectly, against those providing an alternative view.  It automatically engenders a hostility and hate around the discussion of subjects that should be discussed if the aim is for understanding and reconciliation.  What I find interesting is that you get individuals that never change in their approach when discussing such subjects. People that tend to use ad hominems are those that take things "personally", they get emotionally trapped in a subject when often they have no clue or experience of except through the media or social media, while others are arrogant and perhaps a little sociopathic. Politicians and the media often play this game to create polarization and division.

And another in Alabama.

At a 16th birthday party.

The state govenor says "Violent crime has no place in our state" yet is a strong defender of guns.

This will never end, there's been at least 160 mass shootings so far this year.

No name Bertie wrote:The problem some have in discussing politics, geopolitics and different cultures (including religion) is the tendency to get abusive, using ad hominems directly or indirectly, against those providing an alternative view.  It automatically engenders a hostility and hate around the discussion of subjects that should be discussed if the aim is for understanding and reconciliation.  What I find interesting is that you get individuals that never change in their approach when discussing such subjects. People that tend to use ad hominems are those that take things "personally", they get emotionally trapped in a subject when often they have no clue or experience of except through the media or social media, while others are arrogant and perhaps a little sociopathic.  Politicians and the media often play this game to create polarization and division.

Well no one is really providing an alternative that works.....because the problem is with Backwater....Brother marries Sister...Southern States like Kentucky.....

Backwater as they are they understand the TENTH Amendment which means they can stick two fingers up at Federal regulation (Laws by Congress)...They basically need to obey the Constitution..

It's why Abortion is still illegal in a lot of the South........Disarming lay people isn't written in the Constitution and the States can middle finger them unless the Constitution gets rewritten and then all sorts of legal stuff goes on for decades....and the fall out will be even bloodier.

It's a mess and the Country is stuck in it.....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote: Well no one is really providing an alternative that works.....because the problem is with Backwater....Brother marries Sister...Southern States like Kentucky.....

Backwater as they are they understand the TENTH Amendment which means they can stick two fingers up at Federal regulation (Laws by Congress)...They basically need to obey the Constitution..

It's why Abortion is still illegal in a lot of the South........Disarming lay people isn't written in the Constitution and the States can middle finger them unless the Constitution gets rewritten and then all sorts of legal stuff goes on for decades....and the fall out will be even bloodier.

It's a mess and the Country is stuck in it.....

The USA is not a country but a Federation of States: quasi independent states, with somewhat different histories and traditions, bound together by the Constitution that gives Federal Institutions certain powers over the states signed into the Union.  

In the past when certain states wanted to break away from the Union there was a bloody civil war and the Southern Confederate States were forced back into the Union with extreme violence, bloodshed and finally political reconciliation.  

I suppose today there is a compromise that needs to be made in preserving the Federation (not allowing any state to go independent) and preventing conflict between certain states and Federal Institutions.  

Or at least that is how I understand it, accepting that I am no expert on the matter.

However, maybe a Constitutional compromise could be had that allowed each State freedom to determine certain contentious rights: remove certain Constitutional Rights and give the State Freedom to decide those Rights for the citizens of that State.  In effect this will increase the power of the State over the Federation.  

Individual States would then, for example, be able to ban assault rifles and introduce restrictions on who can own / handle guns - and this would be a democratic decision at the State level.

Taking the individual States out of the argument.....A bigger problem perhaps is that we have a Primary system......

Gun control is and always has been a very salient issue and the fact that at last reading only 39% of "Democratic voters" (Washington post poll) want repeal of the 2nd Amendment........Tells politicians they would be conceding a lot of ground to potential Party rivals by swimming up that river....Conceding a lot of campaign money too..

Perhaps the British system of being an MP for life would make it easier to adjust these things...

But yes the Founding Fathers brought in the 2nd Amendment for a populace consisting of mainly Farmers......It's outdated for sure.....

However I have faith in the youth of today and also have faith a new Party will come eventually and gain traction from the left......When the Democrats get compromised at the Election Box......They will have to become more radical...

Sanders showed there is a thirst for change.....Up to the kids not to get disheartened....

Samo wrote:The idea of “bad guys will still have their guns” isnt the great argument you think it is. The vast majority of mass shootings arent done by “bad guys”. And the “bad guys” who’ll still have guns would be committing crimes regardless.

Most mass shootings (I believe as much as 75% in 2023 so far) are committed in the inner city with illegally obtained handguns in cities with the most gun laws.

States like Vermont and New Hampshire have few gun laws and a crime rate comparable to Western Europe. Baltimore on the other hand...

Not to mention 60% of murders being committed by just 12% of the population....

the-goon2 wrote:

Samo wrote:The idea of “bad guys will still have their guns” isnt the great argument you think it is. The vast majority of mass shootings arent done by “bad guys”. And the “bad guys” who’ll still have guns would be committing crimes regardless.

Most mass shootings (I believe as much as 75% in 2023 so far) are committed in the inner city with illegally obtained handguns in cities with the most gun laws.

States like Vermont and New Hampshire have few gun laws and a crime rate comparable to Western Europe. Baltimore on the other hand...

Source for stats?
This (albeit from 4 years ago) says the opposite - https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/higher-rates-of-mass-shootings-in-us-states-with-more-relaxed-gun-control-laws/

How significantly has it changed since then?

the-goon2 wrote:

Samo wrote:The idea of “bad guys will still have their guns” isnt the great argument you think it is. The vast majority of mass shootings arent done by “bad guys”. And the “bad guys” who’ll still have guns would be committing crimes regardless.

Most mass shootings (I believe as much as 75% in 2023 so far) are committed in the inner city with illegally obtained handguns in cities with the most gun laws.

States like Vermont and New Hampshire have few gun laws and a crime rate comparable to Western Europe. Baltimore on the other hand...

Who would have thought New Hampshire...The State with the least poverty in the USA would have fewer problems with gun crime..

Amazing...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

Samo wrote:The idea of “bad guys will still have their guns” isnt the great argument you think it is. The vast majority of mass shootings arent done by “bad guys”. And the “bad guys” who’ll still have guns would be committing crimes regardless.

Most mass shootings (I believe as much as 75% in 2023 so far) are committed in the inner city with illegally obtained handguns in cities with the most gun laws.

States like Vermont and New Hampshire have few gun laws and a crime rate comparable to Western Europe. Baltimore on the other hand...

Who would have thought New Hampshire...The State with the least poverty in the USA would have fewer problems with gun crime..

Amazing...

Crime causes poverty, not the other way around.

the-goon2 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

Samo wrote:The idea of “bad guys will still have their guns” isnt the great argument you think it is. The vast majority of mass shootings arent done by “bad guys”. And the “bad guys” who’ll still have guns would be committing crimes regardless.

Most mass shootings (I believe as much as 75% in 2023 so far) are committed in the inner city with illegally obtained handguns in cities with the most gun laws.

States like Vermont and New Hampshire have few gun laws and a crime rate comparable to Western Europe. Baltimore on the other hand...

Who would have thought New Hampshire...The State with the least poverty in the USA would have fewer problems with gun crime..

Amazing...

Crime causes poverty, not the other way around.

Wait, what?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

Samo wrote:The idea of “bad guys will still have their guns” isnt the great argument you think it is. The vast majority of mass shootings arent done by “bad guys”. And the “bad guys” who’ll still have guns would be committing crimes regardless.

Most mass shootings (I believe as much as 75% in 2023 so far) are committed in the inner city with illegally obtained handguns in cities with the most gun laws.

States like Vermont and New Hampshire have few gun laws and a crime rate comparable to Western Europe. Baltimore on the other hand...

Source for stats?
This (albeit from 4 years ago) says the opposite - https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/higher-rates-of-mass-shootings-in-us-states-with-more-relaxed-gun-control-laws/

How significantly has it changed since then?

https://mass-shootings.info/index.php

Looks like it has.

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

Samo wrote:The idea of “bad guys will still have their guns” isnt the great argument you think it is. The vast majority of mass shootings arent done by “bad guys”. And the “bad guys” who’ll still have guns would be committing crimes regardless.

Most mass shootings (I believe as much as 75% in 2023 so far) are committed in the inner city with illegally obtained handguns in cities with the most gun laws.

States like Vermont and New Hampshire have few gun laws and a crime rate comparable to Western Europe. Baltimore on the other hand...

Who would have thought New Hampshire...The State with the least poverty in the USA would have fewer problems with gun crime..

Amazing...

Crime causes poverty, not the other way around.

Wait, what?

Well yeah, if areas aren't safe from crime ppl won't setup new businesses > less jobs > less services > higher insurance costs/risks > higher cost of living > lower standard > ppl become more poor >

If any investment gets lost to crime, how does the area improve?

The 1st step to revitalize an area is get crime down, this allows decent hardworking ppl who provide goods and services to the population to thrive and add wealth which can be re-invested in a virtuous circle of improvement and wealth creation. With high crime, there is no incentive for long term investment as anything built will be destroyed or comes at too high a cost, a cost ultimately paid by the residents, and you get the above circle towards poverty.

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

Samo wrote:The idea of “bad guys will still have their guns” isnt the great argument you think it is. The vast majority of mass shootings arent done by “bad guys”. And the “bad guys” who’ll still have guns would be committing crimes regardless.

Most mass shootings (I believe as much as 75% in 2023 so far) are committed in the inner city with illegally obtained handguns in cities with the most gun laws.

States like Vermont and New Hampshire have few gun laws and a crime rate comparable to Western Europe. Baltimore on the other hand...

Source for stats?
This (albeit from 4 years ago) says the opposite - https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/higher-rates-of-mass-shootings-in-us-states-with-more-relaxed-gun-control-laws/

How significantly has it changed since then?

https://mass-shootings.info/index.php

Looks like it has.

Those stats only go to 2022, not 2023.
In 2022 the state with the most mass shootings was Texas.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

Samo wrote:The idea of “bad guys will still have their guns” isnt the great argument you think it is. The vast majority of mass shootings arent done by “bad guys”. And the “bad guys” who’ll still have guns would be committing crimes regardless.

Most mass shootings (I believe as much as 75% in 2023 so far) are committed in the inner city with illegally obtained handguns in cities with the most gun laws.

States like Vermont and New Hampshire have few gun laws and a crime rate comparable to Western Europe. Baltimore on the other hand...

Source for stats?
This (albeit from 4 years ago) says the opposite - https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/higher-rates-of-mass-shootings-in-us-states-with-more-relaxed-gun-control-laws/

How significantly has it changed since then?

https://mass-shootings.info/index.php

Looks like it has.

Those stats only go to 2022, not 2023.
In 2022 the state with the most mass shootings was Texas.

My mistake 2022. I doubt 2023 will be much different, and 75% inner city sounds about right, so you have disproven nothing.

Interesting why you didn't bring up the shootings by city... hmm. I wonder if there is some kind of correlation between all those cities?

the-goon2 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

Samo wrote:The idea of “bad guys will still have their guns” isnt the great argument you think it is. The vast majority of mass shootings arent done by “bad guys”. And the “bad guys” who’ll still have guns would be committing crimes regardless.

Most mass shootings (I believe as much as 75% in 2023 so far) are committed in the inner city with illegally obtained handguns in cities with the most gun laws.

States like Vermont and New Hampshire have few gun laws and a crime rate comparable to Western Europe. Baltimore on the other hand...

Who would have thought New Hampshire...The State with the least poverty in the USA would have fewer problems with gun crime..

Amazing...

Crime causes poverty, not the other way around.

That's right because if you haven't got any money.....You are going to just starve aren't you ??

Hence why "three strikes and you are out" from Billy boy probably cost his Wife the 2016 Election when Black turnout was down..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

Samo wrote:The idea of “bad guys will still have their guns” isnt the great argument you think it is. The vast majority of mass shootings arent done by “bad guys”. And the “bad guys” who’ll still have guns would be committing crimes regardless.

Most mass shootings (I believe as much as 75% in 2023 so far) are committed in the inner city with illegally obtained handguns in cities with the most gun laws.

States like Vermont and New Hampshire have few gun laws and a crime rate comparable to Western Europe. Baltimore on the other hand...

Who would have thought New Hampshire...The State with the least poverty in the USA would have fewer problems with gun crime..

Amazing...

Crime causes poverty, not the other way around.

That's right because if you haven't got any money.....You are going to just starve aren't you ??

Hence why "three strikes and you are out" from Billy boy probably cost his Wife the 2016 Election when Black turnout was down..

Yes, all criminals are Alladin's, the only crimes you see are ppl stealing bread to feed their family. It's not like poor ppl don't have ample access to food stamps or food banks, and are generally overweight from err. starvation.....

You may have been violently mugged, but did you know the real victim was actually the mugger. You see it's the systematic structures of structural racism that is oppressing him. Or is the structural systems? I forget which one.

I shot a vervet monkey in the balls with a BB gun once, was funny as f*ck.

Galted wrote:I shot a vervet monkey in the balls with a BB gun once, was funny as f*ck.

Really? First thing that comes to mind then is you are an end of a bell.

Quite how shooting an animal albeit I assume a non lethal shot is "fun" rather than cruel I'd love to know.

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

Samo wrote:The idea of “bad guys will still have their guns” isnt the great argument you think it is. The vast majority of mass shootings arent done by “bad guys”. And the “bad guys” who’ll still have guns would be committing crimes regardless.

Most mass shootings (I believe as much as 75% in 2023 so far) are committed in the inner city with illegally obtained handguns in cities with the most gun laws.

States like Vermont and New Hampshire have few gun laws and a crime rate comparable to Western Europe. Baltimore on the other hand...

Source for stats?
This (albeit from 4 years ago) says the opposite - https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/higher-rates-of-mass-shootings-in-us-states-with-more-relaxed-gun-control-laws/

How significantly has it changed since then?

https://mass-shootings.info/index.php

Looks like it has.

Those stats only go to 2022, not 2023.
In 2022 the state with the most mass shootings was Texas.

My mistake 2022. I doubt 2023 will be much different, and 75% inner city sounds about right, so you have disproven nothing.

Interesting why you didn't bring up the shootings by city... hmm. I wonder if there is some kind of correlation between all those cities?

What exactly do you want me to disprove?
I didn't need to bring up shootings by city - you'd already done that. But it's interesting that you didn't bring up shootings by state in your initial post - almost as if you didn't want to paint a full picture.

Shootings by state doesn't really add much colour to this.

It's mainly big states on the list, which makes sense. More ppl, more cities.

There is no real trend whether the state overall is Dem or GOP or the level of gun laws etc. Basically just size, what extra does that tell you? Nothing.

And because you are viewing the matter only by state, you are missing (deliberately) the nuance of where the shootings occur within the state, and by whom.

Why makes you think I am only viewing the matter only by state? I was simply pointing out that you initially cherry-picked the statistics, and so I added the bits you missed out.

You mention nuance, without actually providing any. Or can you provide a full analysis of each mass shooting - the person, the environment, the background etc?

What exactly is your argument? That gun laws should be more relaxed in areas where they are tighter? That everyone, including the mentally ill, has a right to carry an assault rifle, without any background checks?

mountain man wrote:

Galted wrote:I shot a vervet monkey in the balls with a BB gun once, was funny as f*ck.

Really? First thing that comes to mind then is you are an end of a bell.

Quite how shooting an animal albeit I assume a non lethal shot is "fun" rather than cruel I'd love to know.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Why makes you think I am only viewing the matter only by state? I was simply pointing out that you initially cherry-picked the statistics, and so I added the bits you missed out.

You mention nuance, without actually providing any. Or can you provide a full analysis of each mass shooting - the person, the environment, the background etc?

What exactly is your argument? That gun laws should be more relaxed in areas where they are tighter? That everyone, including the mentally ill, has a right to carry an assault rifle, without any background checks?

My point is gun laws don't do anything. There is no correlation between strict gun control and low crime. Ppl who want to commit crime will find a way to do so.

The website does give you a breakdown of who is committing these shootings, and the FBI crime stats also show that.

It show 12% of the US population committing the vast majority of the shooting, and by far the most crime on an absolute and per capita basis. Now, I have already proven that it isn't poverty, so it must be something else, or a mix of other things.

So we know the demographic, we know the political party that runs these areas (and they have for decades). Tell me, what conclusions can we draw from this?

Perhaps we can conclude that there is a huge difference between repeated criminal activity and one-off nutcases wiping out a couple of dozen people in one go. I wonder if stricter laws requiring background checks could prevent any of the latter?

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Why makes you think I am only viewing the matter only by state? I was simply pointing out that you initially cherry-picked the statistics, and so I added the bits you missed out.

You mention nuance, without actually providing any. Or can you provide a full analysis of each mass shooting - the person, the environment, the background etc?

What exactly is your argument? That gun laws should be more relaxed in areas where they are tighter? That everyone, including the mentally ill, has a right to carry an assault rifle, without any background checks?

My point is gun laws don't do anything. There is no correlation between strict gun control and low crime. Ppl who want to commit crime will find a way to do so.

The website does give you a breakdown of who is committing these shootings, and the FBI crime stats also show that.

It show 12% of the US population committing the vast majority of the shooting, and by far the most crime on an absolute and per capita basis. Now, I have already proven that it isn't poverty, so it must be something else, or a mix of other things.

So we know the demographic, we know the political party that runs these areas (and they have for decades). Tell me, what conclusions can we draw from this?

Gun laws if uniform across the country would do something, as shown by Western Europe. The laws in individual states is a red herring, state lines aren't a magic barrier, if it's easy to buy a gun in Texas it enables the nutcases in places like New York an easy and legal route to purchasing them. 54% of mass shootings in the US are carried about by white men.

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Why makes you think I am only viewing the matter only by state? I was simply pointing out that you initially cherry-picked the statistics, and so I added the bits you missed out.

You mention nuance, without actually providing any. Or can you provide a full analysis of each mass shooting - the person, the environment, the background etc?

What exactly is your argument? That gun laws should be more relaxed in areas where they are tighter? That everyone, including the mentally ill, has a right to carry an assault rifle, without any background checks?

My point is gun laws don't do anything. There is no correlation between strict gun control and low crime. Ppl who want to commit crime will find a way to do so.

The website does give you a breakdown of who is committing these shootings, and the FBI crime stats also show that.

It show 12% of the US population committing the vast majority of the shooting, and by far the most crime on an absolute and per capita basis. Now, I have already proven that it isn't poverty, so it must be something else, or a mix of other things.

So we know the demographic, we know the political party that runs these areas (and they have for decades). Tell me, what conclusions can we draw from this?

Gun laws if uniform across the country would do something, as shown by Western Europe. The laws in individual states is a red herring, state lines aren't a magic barrier, if it's easy to buy a gun in Texas it enables the nutcases in places like New York an easy and legal route to purchasing them. 54% of mass shootings in the US are carried about by white men.

False, around 15% of mass shootings are committed by whites, around 70% are by blacks.

the-goon2 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

the-goon2 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Why makes you think I am only viewing the matter only by state? I was simply pointing out that you initially cherry-picked the statistics, and so I added the bits you missed out.

You mention nuance, without actually providing any. Or can you provide a full analysis of each mass shooting - the person, the environment, the background etc?

What exactly is your argument? That gun laws should be more relaxed in areas where they are tighter? That everyone, including the mentally ill, has a right to carry an assault rifle, without any background checks?

My point is gun laws don't do anything. There is no correlation between strict gun control and low crime. Ppl who want to commit crime will find a way to do so.

The website does give you a breakdown of who is committing these shootings, and the FBI crime stats also show that.

It show 12% of the US population committing the vast majority of the shooting, and by far the most crime on an absolute and per capita basis. Now, I have already proven that it isn't poverty, so it must be something else, or a mix of other things.

So we know the demographic, we know the political party that runs these areas (and they have for decades). Tell me, what conclusions can we draw from this?

Gun laws if uniform across the country would do something, as shown by Western Europe. The laws in individual states is a red herring, state lines aren't a magic barrier, if it's easy to buy a gun in Texas it enables the nutcases in places like New York an easy and legal route to purchasing them. 54% of mass shootings in the US are carried about by white men.

False, around 15% of mass shootings are committed by whites, around 70% are by blacks.

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/public-mass-shootings-database-amasses-details-half-century-us-mass-shootings