Another day, another mass shooting

[Pierre]

the one difference is that Americans generally will be armed enough to fire back

This is just another false argument that doesn't stack up. The number of times a member of the public has stopped a mass shooting because they themselves were armed is so infinitesimal compared to the volume of mass shootings in the US that you can hardly call it a number.

This link, which is supportive, can still only cite 24 occasions in 30 years where an armed civilian has ended or prevented a mass shooting.

http://memepoliceman.com/list-of-mas...med-civilians/

Compare that to the 1,624 mass shootings that there were in just the last 5 years!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...s-gun-violence

I don't know how many mass shootings there have been in the last 30 years, but if you extrapolate from the last 5 you would get something like 9,700.

24 is 0.2% so a educated estimate of how many mass shootings have been stopped by armed civilians is a whopping 0.2%

The reasons are obvious:

- Most people (even if they have a licence to carry a gun/own a gun) don't take them to church, cinema, school, concert etc.

- Even if they did have a gun on them, the panic and confusion would probably prevent them from pinpointing the shooter

- the shooter may have an AR15 or other automatic weapon and the civilian just a hand gun

- Joe public is generally not Dirty Harry, and if someone is shooting, 99% of people, even if they have a gun, would not run towards the gunfire.

Originally Posted by Pierre

This is just another false argument that doesn't stack up. The number of times a member of the public has stopped a mass shooting because they themselves were armed is so infinitesimal compared to the volume of mass shootings in the US that you can hardly call it a number.

This link, which is supportive, can still only cite 24 occasions in 30 years where an armed civilian has ended or prevented a mass shooting.

http://memepoliceman.com/list-of-mas...med-civilians/

Compare that to the 1,624 mass shootings that there were in just the last 5 years!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...s-gun-violence

I don't know how many mass shootings there have been in the last 30 years, but if you extrapolate from the last 5 you would get something like 9,700.

24 is 0.2% so a educated estimate of how many mass shootings have been stopped by armed civilians is a whopping 0.2%

The reasons are obvious:

- Most people (even if they have a licence to carry a gun/own a gun) don't take them to church, cinema, school, concert etc.

- Even if they did have a gun on them, the panic and confusion would probably prevent them from pinpointing the shooter

- the shooter may have an AR15 or other automatic weapon and the civilian just a hand gun

- Joe public is generally not Dirty Harry, and if someone is shooting, 99% of people, even if they have a gun, would not run towards the gunfire.

[Pierre]

Isn’t it funny how facts can kill a discussion stone dead. The silence is deafening..................................

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Isn’t it funny how facts can kill a discussion stone dead. The silence is deafening..................................

You are right.

When someone mentions banning or controlling guns, there is the usual flurry of indignant responses citing freedom, the Constitution, defending your home, etc. The argument gets deflected and muddled, as intended, so that the specifics of any gun control suggestion get lost and when the smoke dies down, no progress is made. This all by design.

However, when someone cuts through the smokescreen and gets to the specifics, like your post, the silence is, as you say, deafening.

3 weeks ago, I made a similar post in another thread. Again, no responses ...

The Gun Lobby strategy is clear & deliberate: take it to an emotional place and obfuscate the argument until you have either worn down your opponent or rundown the time available.

or perhaps everyone just got bored of the same thing being posted again and again.

[Lutherf]

Originally Posted by Paul M

or perhaps everyone just got bored of the same thing being posted again and again.

That's pretty much the case. This argument has been had repeatedly.

First, if someone stops a mass shooting before it becomes a mass shooting then no mass shooting occurred so those who wish to ban guns don't count it in their statistics.

Second, the majority of mass shootings occur in places where lawful gun owners are prohibited from carrying firearms. If a lawful gun owner is prevented from being armed then they really can't stop anything.

Third, it's nearly axiomatic that when a rampage shooter is engaged by an armed defender they "self terminate". The anti-gun crowd generally doesn't count that as an armed responder stopping the massacre.

For example, in 2012 a 20 year old kid with an AR-15 went into a shopping mall in Clackamas Oregon. The kid shot up the area outside a department store killing two people. He was confronted by a civilian who was carrying a concealed handgun. The civilian didn't shoot because of the potential to hit someone in the crowd but the assailant took that opportunity to head into a stairwell and commit suicide. The event isn't considered to be a "mass shooting" because less than 4 people were killed.

Last November a deranged man walked into a Costco (warehouse style retail store) in Lenexa, Kansas. The man announced that he was an off duty US Marshall and that he was there to kill people. An off duty Kansas City police officer confronted the deranged man, ordered him to drop the gun and killed him when the suspect turned to shoot. Again, no mass shooting will get counted because no mass shooting occurred. In this case it was stopped before it even got started.

In June of 2016 a man started shooting at a crowd outside a nightclub in Lyman, South Carolina. Someone in the vicinity was armed and returned fire. The shooter was struck in the leg and stopped shooting. Again, it isn't counted as a mass shooting because it doesn't fit the criteria.

When impossible or unrealistic parameters are put on any reply to a given argument it becomes useless to respond.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Paul M

or perhaps everyone just got bored of the same thing being posted again and again.

In that case, Paul, you had better shutdown the forum The place is littered with people doing this ...

---------- Post added at 07:52 ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 ----------

Originally Posted by Lutherf

That's pretty much the case. This argument has been had repeatedly

No, not really. The argument has not been had but the successful attempts at misdirection have.

Originally Posted by Lutherf

First, if someone stops a mass shooting before it becomes a mass shooting then no mass shooting occurred so those who wish to ban guns don't count it in their statistics.

Second, the majority of mass shootings occur in places where lawful gun owners are prohibited from carrying firearms. If a lawful gun owner is prevented from being armed then they really can't stop anything.

Third, it's nearly axiomatic that when a rampage shooter is engaged by an armed defender they "self terminate". The anti-gun crowd generally doesn't count that as an armed responder stopping the massacre.

For example, in 2012 a 20 year old kid with an AR-15 went into a shopping mall in Clackamas Oregon. The kid shot up the area outside a department store killing two people. He was confronted by a civilian who was carrying a concealed handgun. The civilian didn't shoot because of the potential to hit someone in the crowd but the assailant took that opportunity to head into a stairwell and commit suicide. The event isn't considered to be a "mass shooting" because less than 4 people were killed.

Last November a deranged man walked into a Costco (warehouse style retail store) in Lenexa, Kansas. The man announced that he was an off duty US Marshall and that he was there to kill people. An off duty Kansas City police officer confronted the deranged man, ordered him to drop the gun and killed him when the suspect turned to shoot. Again, no mass shooting will get counted because no mass shooting occurred. In this case it was stopped before it even got started.

In June of 2016 a man started shooting at a crowd outside a nightclub in Lyman, South Carolina. Someone in the vicinity was armed and returned fire. The shooter was struck in the leg and stopped shooting. Again, it isn't counted as a mass shooting because it doesn't fit the criteria.

When impossible or unrealistic parameters are put on any reply to a given argument it becomes useless to respond.

What are the "impossible or unrealistic parameters"? Please elaborate ..

You (again) have avoided the main problem i.e. the access to semi-automatic weapons by civilians. Look at the guns used in the most deadly mass shootings:

Deadliest mass shootings since 1949

If these were banned, in the same way as fully automatics are then the numbers of people killed would reduce.

You are obviously in favour of Gun ownership so I will ask this question yet again: why do gun owners in the US need, not want, semi-automatic weapons? Just to clear so we don't go down the rathole of "they want to take away all my guns!", I am discussing gun categories that fall outside of the group deemed appropriate to defend you, your family and your home.

[Lutherf]

Originally Posted by ianch99

In that case, Paul, you had better shutdown the forum The place is littered with people doing this ...

---------- Post added at 07:52 ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 ----------



No, not really. The argument has not been had but the successful attempts at misdirection have.



What are the "impossible or unrealistic parameters"? Please elaborate ..

You (again) have avoided the main problem i.e. the access to semi-automatic weapons by civilians. Look at the guns used in the most deadly mass shootings:

Deadliest mass shootings since 1949

If these were banned, in the same way as fully automatics are then the numbers of people killed would reduce.

You are obviously in favour of Gun ownership so I will ask this question yet again: why do gun owners in the US need, not want, semi-automatic weapons? Just to clear so we don't go down the rathole of "they want to take away all my guns!", I am discussing gun categories that fall outside of the group deemed appropriate to defend you, your family and your home.

The most common reason for wanting (needing) a semi-automatic weapon is to defend one's self from an attacker armed with a semi-automatic weapon and/or multiple assailants. Since the early 1900s the semi-automatic handgun, and later the semi-automatic rifle, have been the most commonly produced firearms. As such, they are the type of weapon one would most likely encounter in an attack. Being armed with a single shot pistol in an engagement against 3 attackers puts the defender at a serious disadvantage.

This disadvantage was recognized well before the invention of the semi-automatic firearm. It was not at all uncommon for an infnatryman using a musket to be supported by a loader and two or more backup weapons. The infantryman would fire a round, hand the musket off, take a loaded one and fire again as the first weapon was reloaded. In later years this lead to the development of the cartridge which improved loading times compared to component loads.

I would also note that firearms are not required to commit a mass casualty attack. In 2014, in Kunming, China, 8 assailants stabbed to death 31 bystanders and injured another 140. The attackers, by the way, were stopped by a responder with either a fully automatic or semi-automatic firearm. THAT is the purpose of modern firearms and that is why self defense minded people want and need them.

Originally Posted by Lutherf

The most common reason for wanting (needing) a semi-automatic weapon is to defend one's self from an attacker armed with a semi-automatic weapon and/or multiple assailants. Since the early 1900s the semi-automatic handgun, and later the semi-automatic rifle, have been the most commonly produced firearms. As such, they are the type of weapon one would most likely encounter in an attack. Being armed with a single shot pistol in an engagement against 3 attackers puts the defender at a serious disadvantage.

This disadvantage was recognized well before the invention of the semi-automatic firearm. It was not at all uncommon for an infnatryman using a musket to be supported by a loader and two or more backup weapons. The infantryman would fire a round, hand the musket off, take a loaded one and fire again as the first weapon was reloaded. In later years this lead to the development of the cartridge which improved loading times compared to component loads.

I would also note that firearms are not required to commit a mass casualty attack. In 2014, in Kunming, China, 8 assailants stabbed to death 31 bystanders and injured another 140. The attackers, by the way, were stopped by a responder with either a fully automatic or semi-automatic firearm. THAT is the purpose of modern firearms and that is why self defense minded people want and need them.

In a sane society with strict control of lethal weapons, you do not need one. You just don’t. It depresses me that you wrote that first paragraph in all seriousness and without any awareness whatsoever of how unhinged you sound in the ears of just about anyone who lives in a stable democracy other than America.

You *want* one; all else is self-serving waffle. You aren’t self-defence minded, you’re just self obsessed, determined to defend an idea of freedom that is about as far as it is possible to get from the desire for self-determination felt by the white Europeans who founded your country.

As I’ve said already, your society has a sickness deep in its soul. The so-called gun control debate is so far from rational that I’m just glad that it’s not my fight.

[Lutherf]

Originally Posted by Chris

In a sane society with strict control of lethal weapons, you do not need one. You just don’t. It depresses me that you wrote that first paragraph in all seriousness and without any awareness whatsoever of how unhinged you sound in the ears of just about anyone who lives in a stable democracy other than America.

You *want* one; all else is self-serving waffle. You aren’t self-defence minded, you’re just self obsessed, determined to defend an idea of freedom that is about as far as it is possible to get from the desire for self-determination felt by the white Europeans who founded your country.

As I’ve said already, your society has a sickness deep in its soul. The so-called gun control debate is so far from rational that I’m just glad that it’s not my fight.

In the pas 10 years there have been mass shootings in Germany, Belgium, Austria, France, Italy and the UK. No nation is immune from such an occurrence. Historically, Europeans have had a much lower rate of gun crime than the US has. Overall crime rates aren't that much different and, unless I'm seriously mistaken, the homicide rate in the UK actually INCREASED for the 5 years after the 1997 act. While that increase has since reversed it would appear that the act isn't what caused the decrease but, rather, a cultural aversion to homicide.

In the US the homicide rate is driven primarily by gang culture (suicide is the single largest factor in gun deaths but that's a different matter). Certain neighborhoods in certain cities tend to heavily skew the homicide rate. It is the resistance of local authorities in those areas to actively enforce laws which facilitates those homicides. Ultimately the difference is cultural, not a matter of the rate of gun ownership.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Lutherf

The most common reason for wanting (needing) a semi-automatic weapon is to defend one's self from an attacker armed with a semi-automatic weapon and/or multiple assailants.

I think the most common reason is an extension of one genitalia. Buy a sports car instead.

---------- Post added at 22:36 ---------- Previous post was at 22:31 ----------

Originally Posted by Lutherf

While that increase has since reversed it would appear that the act isn't what caused the decrease but, rather, a cultural aversion to homicide.

That has to one of the most bizarre sentences I have read. “ a cultural aversion to homicide”

I Just keep reading it back to myself. Surely aversion to homicide is normal human nature.


Are you suggestion the USA has a cultural passion for homicide?

[Lutherf]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I think the most common reason is an extension of one genitalia. Buy a sports car instead.

---------- Post added at 22:36 ---------- Previous post was at 22:31 ----------



That has to one of the most bizarre sentences I have read. “ a cultural aversion to homicide”

I Just keep reading it back to myself. Surely aversion to homicide is normal human nature.


Are you suggestion the USA has a cultural passion for homicide?

One would certainly think that a cultural aversion to homicide is ubiquitous. Unfortunately, that's not the case. In the culture of drug gangs homicide is considered to be part of the deal if not an actual virtue.

As far as sports cars go, I've got one. I'm also satisfied with my genitals. Admittedly, I do have a bit of disagreement with my bladder at 2am from time to time but that's not really a genitals issue.

Originally Posted by Lutherf

In the pas 10 years there have been mass shootings in Germany, Belgium, Austria, France, Italy and the UK. No nation is immune from such an occurrence. Historically, Europeans have had a much lower rate of gun crime than the US has. Overall crime rates aren't that much different and, unless I'm seriously mistaken, the homicide rate in the UK actually INCREASED for the 5 years after the 1997 act. While that increase has since reversed it would appear that the act isn't what caused the decrease but, rather, a cultural aversion to homicide.

In the US the homicide rate is driven primarily by gang culture (suicide is the single largest factor in gun deaths but that's a different matter). Certain neighborhoods in certain cities tend to heavily skew the homicide rate. It is the resistance of local authorities in those areas to actively enforce laws which facilitates those homicides. Ultimately the difference is cultural, not a matter of the rate of gun ownership.

Citation, please?

I have tried looking for the source of that stat, and the most commonly quoted source is a CDC press release - http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

There is nothing in that press release to support the 80% statistic.

[Lutherf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Citation, please?

I have tried looking for the source of that stat, and the most commonly quoted source is a CDC press release - http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

There is nothing in that press release to support the 80% statistic.

First, I'm not sure where you came up with anything "80%". My claim was that the homicide rate, excluding suicides, was driven by gang violence.

While there are several studies by ostensibly partisan groups available I prefer to go with something simple from the US Center for Disease Control. This study is a bit dated but I'll link to source data that is current. - https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6103a2.htm

Editorial Note

Homicide is the second leading cause of death among persons aged 15–24 years in the United States (4). In some cities, such as Los Angeles and Long Beach, gang homicides account for the majority of homicides in this age group (61% and 69%, respectively). The differences observed in gang versus nongang homicide incidents with regard to victim demographics, place of injury, and the use of drive-by shootings and firearms are consistent with previous reports (5). The finding that gang homicides commonly were not precipitated by drug trade/use or other crimes in progress also is similar to previous research; however, this finding challenges public perceptions on gang homicides (5). The public often has viewed gangs, drug trade/use, crime, and homicides as interconnected factors; however, studies have shown little connection between gang homicides and drug trade/use and crime (5). Gangs and gang members are involved in a variety of high-risk behaviors that sometimes include drug and crime involvement, but gang-related homicides usually are attributed to other circumstances (6). Newark was an exception by having a higher proportion of gang homicides being drug-related. A possible explanation of this divergent finding could be that Newark is experiencing homicides by gangs formed specifically for drug trade. Overall, these findings support a view of gang homicides as retaliatory violence. These incidents most often result when contentious gang members pass each other in public places and a conflict quickly escalates into homicide with the use of firearms and drive-by shootings.

It should be noted that "Gang Violence", as defined for this study, does not include victims who were affiliated with a gang but died from an incident not directly related to gang activity -

Gang-related: homicide is suspected to have resulted from gang activity or gang rivalry; not used if the decedent was a gang member but the homicide did not appear to result from gang activity.

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/nvdrs/faqs.html

This can create a "Gang Violence" category that is underreported because many gang related homicides will then fall into the "Arguments" or "Drug Involvement" categories, both of which are often tied to gang activity.

This data - https://wisqars.cdc.gov:8443/nvdrs/nvdrsController.jsp
gives an overview of homicides by circumstance for 5 relatively low crime states. The data from the study cited in the first link covers certain high crime cities but uses the same definition of "Gang Violence".

Because of the narrow definition of "Gang Violence" used in these studies it's difficult to come up with hard data. The CDC study, however, emphasizes gang activity as a significant factor in, especially, the youth homicide rate.

This study by the National Gang Center (also a government entity) is a bit more clear regarding the impact of gangs on homicide rate, especially in more populated cities - https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/s...-gang-problems

Number of Gang-Related Homicides*

*Because of the many issues surrounding the maintenance and collection of gang-crime data, caution is urged when interpreting the results presented below. For more information regarding this issue, see: www.nationalgangcenter.gov/About/FAQ#q5.

The number of gang-related homicides reported from 2007 to 2012 is displayed by area type and population size.

From 2007 through 2012, a sizeable majority (more than 80 percent) of respondents provided data on gang-related homicides in their jurisdictions.
The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2007 to 2012. During roughly the same time period (2007 to 2011), the FBI estimated, on average, more than 15,500 homicides across the United States (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...tables/table-1). These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13 percent of all homicides annually.
Highly populated areas accounted for the vast majority of gang homicides: nearly 67 percent occurred in cities with populations over 100,000, and 17 percent occurred in suburban counties in 2012.
The number of gang-related homicides decreased 2 percent from 2010 to 2011 and then increased by 28 percent from 2011 to 2012 in cities with populations over 100,000.
In a typical year in the so-called “gang capitals” of Chicago and Los Angeles, around half of all homicides are gang-related; these two cities alone accounted for approximately one in four gang homicides recorded in the NYGS from 2011 to 2012.
Among agencies serving rural counties and smaller cities that reported gang activity, around 75 percent reported zero gang-related homicides. Five percent or less of all gang homicides occurred in these areas annually.
Overall, these results demonstrate conclusively that gang violence is greatly concentrated in the largest cities across the United States.

-edit-
I noticed that one of the links goes to a data page that can't render outside of my search. The search parameters for that link were entered from this page - https://wisqars.cdc.gov:8443/nvdrs/nvdrsDisplay.jsp - and included:
1. Violent death counts by Known Circumstances
2. Checked off only Homicide
3 & 4 were "all"
5. was all years, all states, all everything else

[ianch99]

A depressing but not unsurprising revelation that the Supreme Court nominee is a Gun Nut:

https://twitter.com/igorvolsky/statu...54753896992769

@SenFeinstein: are you worried about AR-15s being used in so many school shootings?

#Kavanaugh: Yea, it's sad. But we need to "harden" our schools. Lots of people use AR-15s for self defense. (Shorter: School shootings are the price we pay for "freedom")