We Can’t Even Have A Quiet 4th In The USA

[AU80cruiser 1,102]

2 hours ago, Didba said:

"Exactly how mass shootings in the U.S. compare to those in other countries is a highly disputed subject. In a widely publicized study originally released in 2015, the pro-gun nonprofit Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) compared the annual number of mass shooting deaths per million people in the U.S. to that of Canada and several European countries from 2009 to 2015. The result? Norway led the world with 1.88 deaths per million, followed by Serbia, France, and Macedonia. Where did the U.S. rank? 11th place."

You telling me that a pro-gun non-profit is a unbiased and credible source for the mass shooting study you are referring to?  What a joke.

The above quoted paragraph is straight from your source. Your "study" with the US at 11 is BS conducted by a pro-gun non-profit.  They changed the definition of mass shootings so they could manipulate the stats to have the US at 11.  Its the same s*** as big tobacco non-profits releasing all those studies back in the day saying smoking cigarettes doesn't cause cancer. Biased studies.

I mean, we have conversed in the past on differing opinionss, and I know you mean well but when you come in here with a source that is so clearly biased and lacking in credibility I just have to call you out on it. Sorry, bud.

 

Actually I just found where snopes fact checked this piece so the publication added this to describe where their numbers came from.

 

Definition of mass public shooting.

We used the traditional FBI definition of mass public shootings in all our posts on this (e.g., here, here, and here).  There are several parts to this definition.

1. The official FBI definition of mass public shootings excludes “shootings that resulted from gang or drug violence” or that occurred in the commission of another crime such as robbery.
2. The FBI also includes only shootings in “public places” such as: commercial areas (malls, stores and other businesses); schools and colleges; open spaces; government properties (including military bases and civilian offices); houses of worship; common areas at apartment buildings; and healthcare facilities.
3. From 1980 to 2013, the original FBI definition of “mass killings” had been “four or more victims slain, in one event, in one location,” and the offender is not included in the victim count (CRS, July 30, 2015).  In 2013, the definition was changed to “three or more killings.”  Vast majority of academics have continued to use the four or more definition.  This includes researchers such as James Alan Fox.  See also studies years ago such as Grant Duwe, Tom Kovandzic, and Carl Moody, “The Impact of Right-to-Carry Concealed Firearm Laws on Mass Public Shootings,” Homicide Studies, Nov. 1, 2002.  Even groups such as Bloomberg’s Everytown, which Snopes cites approvingly, have recently used the four or more definition. The other organization that Snopes cites approvingly, Mother Jones, also has used the four or more definition for most of the period and has only recently well after we did this report started using the three or more definition.

Here's the link so you can see more explanation kf their data.

https://crimeresearch.org/2018/03/fact-checker-snopes-com-big-mistake-comparing-mass-public-shootings-us-europe/

Edited July 6, 2022 by AU80cruiser

[Didba 5,256]

43 minutes ago, AU80cruiser said:

Actually I just found where snopes fact checked this piece so the publication added this to describe where their numbers came from.

 

Definition of mass public shooting.

We used the traditional FBI definition of mass public shootings in all our posts on this (e.g., here, here, and here).  There are several parts to this definition.

1. The official FBI definition of mass public shootings excludes “shootings that resulted from gang or drug violence” or that occurred in the commission of another crime such as robbery.
2. The FBI also includes only shootings in “public places” such as: commercial areas (malls, stores and other businesses); schools and colleges; open spaces; government properties (including military bases and civilian offices); houses of worship; common areas at apartment buildings; and healthcare facilities.
3. From 1980 to 2013, the original FBI definition of “mass killings” had been “four or more victims slain, in one event, in one location,” and the offender is not included in the victim count (CRS, July 30, 2015).  In 2013, the definition was changed to “three or more killings.”  Vast majority of academics have continued to use the four or more definition.  This includes researchers such as James Alan Fox.  See also studies years ago such as Grant Duwe, Tom Kovandzic, and Carl Moody, “The Impact of Right-to-Carry Concealed Firearm Laws on Mass Public Shootings,” Homicide Studies, Nov. 1, 2002.  Even groups such as Bloomberg’s Everytown, which Snopes cites approvingly, have recently used the four or more definition. The other organization that Snopes cites approvingly, Mother Jones, also has used the four or more definition for most of the period and has only recently well after we did this report started using the three or more definition.

Here's the link so you can see more explanation kf their data.

https://crimeresearch.org/2018/03/fact-checker-snopes-com-big-mistake-comparing-mass-public-shootings-us-europe/

The definition isn't the main issue, the pro-gun non-profit was. But I appreciate these sources and agree with the definition aspect. Thanks for pointing this out

Edited July 6, 2022 by Didba

[GoAU 1,599]

To be fair, earlier in this thread, and many others about gun control people quote anti-gun NFPs - if you are are going to omit this for bias, why wouldn’t the same apply to the anti-gun sources?  
 

Both sides manipulate statistics - for example, including suicides in the “gun violence” statistic is intentionally misleading as well.    Another example is how the term “mass shooting” has changed over the years, and from country to country in the case of international comparison.   
 

I’m surprised why no one here asked about why the “red flag laws” in IL failed to flag this individual- by all accounts the warning signs were there.   Red flag laws not withstanding, there was more than enough history with this individual to either charge him for prior offenses or to get him classified as  mentally defective - either of which would have prevented him from owning a gun.   Also, I read he “legally purchased” the rifle in IL, which already has a “ban” on assault weapons - so I’m curious as to why more info isn’t already available on that?   

[icanthearyou 4,462]

8 hours ago, AU80cruiser said:

Actually I just found where snopes fact checked this piece so the publication added this to describe where their numbers came from.

 

Definition of mass public shooting.

We used the traditional FBI definition of mass public shootings in all our posts on this (e.g., here, here, and here).  There are several parts to this definition.

1. The official FBI definition of mass public shootings excludes “shootings that resulted from gang or drug violence” or that occurred in the commission of another crime such as robbery.
2. The FBI also includes only shootings in “public places” such as: commercial areas (malls, stores and other businesses); schools and colleges; open spaces; government properties (including military bases and civilian offices); houses of worship; common areas at apartment buildings; and healthcare facilities.
3. From 1980 to 2013, the original FBI definition of “mass killings” had been “four or more victims slain, in one event, in one location,” and the offender is not included in the victim count (CRS, July 30, 2015).  In 2013, the definition was changed to “three or more killings.”  Vast majority of academics have continued to use the four or more definition.  This includes researchers such as James Alan Fox.  See also studies years ago such as Grant Duwe, Tom Kovandzic, and Carl Moody, “The Impact of Right-to-Carry Concealed Firearm Laws on Mass Public Shootings,” Homicide Studies, Nov. 1, 2002.  Even groups such as Bloomberg’s Everytown, which Snopes cites approvingly, have recently used the four or more definition. The other organization that Snopes cites approvingly, Mother Jones, also has used the four or more definition for most of the period and has only recently well after we did this report started using the three or more definition.

Here's the link so you can see more explanation kf their data.

https://crimeresearch.org/2018/03/fact-checker-snopes-com-big-mistake-comparing-mass-public-shootings-us-europe/

The next paragraph of the (outdated, the 2017 Las Vegas shooting alone would put the U.S. at the top) report you posted:

Typical (Median) Annual Death Rate per Million People from Mass Public Shootings (U.S., Canada, and Europe, 2009-2015):

1. United States — 0.058
2. Albania — 0
3. Austria — 0
4. Belgium — 0
5. Czech Republic — 0
6. Finland — 0
7. France — 0
8. Germany — 0
9. Italy — 0
10. Macedonia — 0
11. Netherlands — 0
12. Norway — 0
13. Russia — 0
14. Serbia — 0
15. Slovakia — 0
16. Switzerland — 0
17. United Kingdom — 0

Using the median analysis, the United States is the only country examined that shows a propensity for mass shootings. The data itself supports this interpretation, as the United States endured mass shooting events all seven years, but the other countries all experienced mass shootings during only one or two years.

I have yet to see you post anything that is truthful.  You are a liar.

[CoffeeTiger 5,084]

4 hours ago, GoAU said:

To be fair, earlier in this thread, and many others about gun control people quote anti-gun NFPs - if you are are going to omit this for bias, why wouldn’t the same apply to the anti-gun sources?  
 

 

I wouldn't omit it. but in the link he posted, the very next few paragraphs give a pretty detailed explanation for why experts believe that that data and methodology was flawed and isn't accurate. 

4 hours ago, GoAU said:

Both sides manipulate statistics - for example, including suicides in the “gun violence” statistic is intentionally misleading as well.    Another example is how the term “mass shooting” has changed over the years, and from country to country in the case of international comparison.   

 

 

I disagree. Suicide by gun is one of the fastest, easiest, and most effective ways for a person to kill themselves. I would classify them as gun violence because someone IS using a gun to harm or kill a person (themselves). 

If in a altered mental states these people are in, would they still end up ending their own lives if a gun wasn't easily available to them and they had to think up another more difficult way to end their lives? I don't know. Some would of course find a way, but I also believe less guns would lead to overall less suicides. 

 

 

4 hours ago, GoAU said:

  Also, I read he “legally purchased” the rifle in IL, which already has a “ban” on assault weapons - so I’m curious as to why more info isn’t already available on that?   

Assault weapons are legal in Illinois. Only place it's illegal to buy one in Illinois is Cook County/Chicago. 

Edited July 6, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[AU80cruiser 1,102]

2 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

The next paragraph of the (outdated, the 2017 Las Vegas shooting alone would put the U.S. at the top) report you posted:

Typical (Median) Annual Death Rate per Million People from Mass Public Shootings (U.S., Canada, and Europe, 2009-2015):

1. United States — 0.058
2. Albania — 0
3. Austria — 0
4. Belgium — 0
5. Czech Republic — 0
6. Finland — 0
7. France — 0
8. Germany — 0
9. Italy — 0
10. Macedonia — 0
11. Netherlands — 0
12. Norway — 0
13. Russia — 0
14. Serbia — 0
15. Slovakia — 0
16. Switzerland — 0
17. United Kingdom — 0

Using the median analysis, the United States is the only country examined that shows a propensity for mass shootings. The data itself supports this interpretation, as the United States endured mass shooting events all seven years, but the other countries all experienced mass shootings during only one or two years.

I have yet to see you post anything that is truthful.  You are a liar.

I posted an article. That article was fact checked by snopes. Then the explaination of that data was presented. What part of that is a lie?

 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

7 minutes ago, AU80cruiser said:

I posted an article. That article was fact checked by snopes. Then the explaination of that data was presented. What part of that is a lie?

 

Lie to someone else.  You are nothing but a liar.  I have no tolerance.

[AU80cruiser 1,102]

21 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

Assault weapons are legal in Illinois. Only place it's illegal to buy one in Illinois is Cook County/Chicago. 

Fact check FALSE. Assault weapons are banned in the entire country without going through a rigorous process in which you will pay thousands of dollars to own one. I would say a minimum of 10 grand but even then you have to hope you get clearance. Assault rifles are full auto. Most guns are semi-auto including pistols which are responsible for much more death than any rifle. 

 

The AR in AR15 does not mean assault rifle if thats what you thought. It simply stands for Armalite. 

[AU80cruiser 1,102]

Just now, icanthearyou said:

Lie to someone else.  You are nothing but a liar.  I have no tolerance.

There's the key word right there. The "tolerant" side has no tolerance especially a different opinion. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,084]

1 hour ago, AU80cruiser said:

Fact check FALSE. Assault weapons are banned in the entire country without going through a rigorous process in which you will pay thousands of dollars to own one. I would say a minimum of 10 grand but even then you have to hope you get clearance. Assault rifles are full auto. Most guns are semi-auto including pistols which are responsible for much more death than any rifle. 

 

The AR in AR15 does not mean assault rifle if thats what you thought. It simply stands for Armalite. 

I'm aware of the technicalities. I know what AR stands for. You know what everyone is talking about when they talk about assault weapons. 

 

[AU80cruiser 1,102]

6 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

I'm aware of the technicalities. I know what AR stands for. You know what everyone is talking about when they talk about assault weapons. 

 

That would include guns used for suicide which would just be replaced with some other means if guns were removed.

Speaking of that how much suicide do you think the lock downs were responsible for? Didnt seem to be a problem then.

And before you say the lockdowns saved lives, so do guns. Want to show that stat?

[I_M4_AU 7,771]

Mental health is a real issue in this case.

The father of the 21-year-old man charged with killing seven people when he allegedly unleashed a hail of bullets on an Independence Day parade in the Chicago suburb of Highland Park sponsored his son’s firearm owners identification card two and half years ago despite two instances of police being called to their home over threatening behavior. 

Robert E. Crimo III, who was charged with seven counts of murder Tuesday, applied for a FOID card in December 2019 at age 19, Illinois State Police revealed in a press release. 

"The subject was under 21 and the application was sponsored by the subject’s father," Illinois State Police said. "Therefore, at the time of FOID application review in January of 2020, there was insufficient basis to establish a clear and present danger and deny the FOID application."

However, the suspected shooter’s dad, Bob Crimo, 58, knew police had been called to their home twice earlier that same year because his son had threatened to kill himself and the rest of his family. 

In April 2019, an individual contacted the Highland Park Police Department a week after learning of Crimo's attempted suicide, Lake County Major Crime Task Force spokesman Christopher Covelli said 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/father-highland-park-shooting-suspect-sponsored-firearm-ownership-card-past-violent-threats?intcmp=tw_fnc

To convince a parent that their kid has issues is difficult, however, if he threatened to kill your whole family; why would you sponsor that child to obtain a gun later that same year?

[CoffeeTiger 5,084]

2 minutes ago, AU80cruiser said:

That would include guns used for suicide which would just be replaced with some other means if guns were removed.

Speaking of that how much suicide do you think the lock downs were responsible for? Didnt seem to be a problem then.

And before you say the lockdowns saved lives, so do guns. Want to show that stat?

 

They would be replaced with suicide methods that are slower, more inconvenient, more painful, and have a much higher survival rate than a gunshot to the head. A gun is a tool whose primary purpose is to kill...it does that job very effectively. 

 

guns end more innocent lives than they save. Statistically, people who own a personal firearm are more likely to be shot with their own weapon whether via accidents, it being stolen from them, or from suicide than they ever are to use the weapon in an act of self defense. 

Guns in households are also more likely to end up being used against partners in domestic disputes. 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/guns-handguns-safety-homicide-killing-study

 

[AUDub 11,131]

17 hours ago, Didba said:

Norway led the world with 1.88 deaths per million...

And really only occurred during a single attack. Breivik's.

Edited July 6, 2022 by AUDub

[CoffeeTiger 5,084]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/07/06/highland-park-shooting-crimo-gun-application-foid/

The shooters father sponsored his license to buy guns after he had been involved in a police incident where he had made threats of violence. Police had to come and they confiscated all of his knives and swords he kept, but his father told police they were all his weapons and he only kept them in his sons storage because...reasons, so police gave the father the weapons and then apparently none of this was enough for the state to 'red flag' the son on a gun background check. 

The father also appears to be a typical Conservative MAGA. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/robert-crimo-chicago-shooting-highland-park-b2115876.html

 

Hope every dollar this guy has goes towards restitution for the victims of his son that he covered for and helped arm with weapons.  

 

Edited July 6, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[AU80cruiser 1,102]

4 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

They would be replaced with suicide methods that are slower, more inconvenient, more painful, and have a much higher survival rate than a gunshot to the head. A gun is a tool whose primary purpose is to kill...it does that job very effectively. 

 

guns end more innocent lives than they save. Statistically, people who own a personal firearm are more likely to be shot with their own weapon whether via accidents, it being stolen from them, or from suicide than they ever are to use the weapon in an act of self defense. 

Guns in households are also more likely to end up being used against partners in domestic disputes. 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/guns-handguns-safety-homicide-killing-study

 

Actually:

Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired, and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.

Every year, 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.

60 percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. Forty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed. 

Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.

Fewer than 1 percent of firearms are used in the commission of a crime.

If you doubt the objectivity of the site above, it’s worth pointing out that the Center for Disease Control, in a report ordered by President Obama in 2012 following the Sandy Hook Massacre, estimated that the number of crimes prevented by guns could be even higher—as many as 3 million annually, or some 8,200 every day.

 

https://fee.org/articles/guns-prevent-thousands-of-crimes-every-day-research-show/

 

[AU80cruiser 1,102]

 

[GoAU 1,599]

9 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

I wouldn't omit it. but in the link he posted, the very next few paragraphs give a pretty detailed explanation for why experts believe that that data and methodology was flawed and isn't accurate. 

 

I disagree. Suicide by gun is one of the fastest, easiest, and most effective ways for a person to kill themselves. I would classify them as gun violence because someone IS using a gun to harm or kill a person (themselves). 

If in a altered mental states these people are in, would they still end up ending their own lives if a gun wasn't easily available to them and they had to think up another more difficult way to end their lives? I don't know. Some would of course find a way, but I also believe less guns would lead to overall less suicides. 

 

 

Assault weapons are legal in Illinois. Only place it's illegal to buy one in Illinois is Cook County/Chicago. 

Appreciate the cordial response and correction regarding the IL laws surrounding semi auto rifles.  
 

I will maintain that some of the key laws that IL has regarding guns, that many people want to emulate both failed  - FOID and the IL red flag laws.  

 

With regards to suicide -  first, I abhor the fact that any human being is in such a horrible state of mind that they feel suicide is their best option.  I feel we need more “safety nets” in our mental health system and communities for these desperate souls to reach out to.  But, I do not think it is fair or intellectually honest to lump these deaths in with firearm violence.  We both know what that term is insinuating and the misdirection that is being played with it.  
 

[GoAU 1,599]

3 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/07/06/highland-park-shooting-crimo-gun-application-foid/

The shooters father sponsored his license to buy guns after he had been involved in a police incident where he had made threats of violence. Police had to come and they confiscated all of his knives and swords he kept, but his father told police they were all his weapons and he only kept them in his sons storage because...reasons, so police gave the father the weapons and then apparently none of this was enough for the state to 'red flag' the son on a gun background check. 

The father also appears to be a typical Conservative MAGA. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/robert-crimo-chicago-shooting-highland-park-b2115876.html

 

Hope every dollar this guy has goes towards restitution for the victims of his son that he covered for and helped arm with weapons.  

 

Normally reluctant to  hold parents accountable for the actions of their adult (or almost adult) children.  But I agree with you that there were more than enough indications that this “person” should not own or posses a firearm.  
 

I also think the state bares some responsibility as to how their own systems allowed him to obtain the firearms.  Too often we have seen failures of government parties to update NICS, or in this case the IL FOID and red flag laws.  

[GoAU 1,599]

7 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

They would be replaced with suicide methods that are slower, more inconvenient, more painful, and have a much higher survival rate than a gunshot to the head. A gun is a tool whose primary purpose is to kill...it does that job very effectively. 

 

guns end more innocent lives than they save. Statistically, people who own a personal firearm are more likely to be shot with their own weapon whether via accidents, it being stolen from them, or from suicide than they ever are to use the weapon in an act of self defense. 

Guns in households are also more likely to end up being used against partners in domestic disputes. 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/guns-handguns-safety-homicide-killing-study

 

There are plenty of venues for suicide just as, or more appealing to firearms - car exhaust, running a car into an object, jumping, etc.  

 

As for guns ending more innocent lives than they save - there is data (CDC for example) that estimates defensive gun uses far exceed accidental or self inflicted fatalities.  But, more importantly, it is not the role of the government to become a “nanny state” and deem a Constitutional Right is “too dangerous”.   Individual accountability comes into play.  I do, however, support and encourage as much training as possible for legal gun owners.   I find it odd there are more state funded / subsidized programs for both adults and children regarding firearm safety.  This is an area the NRA excels in, in spite of its bad press.  

[Didba 5,256]

16 hours ago, GoAU said:

To be fair, earlier in this thread, and many others about gun control people quote anti-gun NFPs - if you are are going to omit this for bias, why wouldn’t the same apply to the anti-gun sources?  
 

Both sides manipulate statistics - for example, including suicides in the “gun violence” statistic is intentionally misleading as well.    Another example is how the term “mass shooting” has changed over the years, and from country to country in the case of international comparison.   
 

I’m surprised why no one here asked about why the “red flag laws” in IL failed to flag this individual- by all accounts the warning signs were there.   Red flag laws not withstanding, there was more than enough history with this individual to either charge him for prior offenses or to get him classified as  mentally defective - either of which would have prevented him from owning a gun.   Also, I read he “legally purchased” the rifle in IL, which already has a “ban” on assault weapons - so I’m curious as to why more info isn’t already available on that?   

Yes, I would also omit any studies produced by anti-gun non-profits as biased as well.

[Didba 5,256]

11 hours ago, AU80cruiser said:

Fact check FALSE. Assault weapons are banned in the entire country without going through a rigorous process in which you will pay thousands of dollars to own one. I would say a minimum of 10 grand but even then you have to hope you get clearance. Assault rifles are full auto. Most guns are semi-auto including pistols which are responsible for much more death than any rifle. 

 

The AR in AR15 does not mean assault rifle if thats what you thought. It simply stands for Armalite. 

No waaaaay! AR-15 doesn't stand for assault rifle 15? Wow, TIL.

 

/s

[AU80cruiser 1,102]

1 minute ago, Didba said:

No waaaaay! AR-15 doesn't stand for assault rifle 15? Wow, TIL.

 

/s

I wasn't telling you I was telling someone that sounded like they didn't know.

[Didba 5,256]

11 hours ago, AU80cruiser said:

Fact check FALSE. Assault weapons are banned in the entire country without going through a rigorous process in which you will pay thousands of dollars to own one. I would say a minimum of 10 grand but even then you have to hope you get clearance. Assault rifles are full auto. Most guns are semi-auto including pistols which are responsible for much more death than any rifle. 

 

The AR in AR15 does not mean assault rifle if thats what you thought. It simply stands for Armalite. 

AR-15s are essentially assault weapons. They perform every function of an m-4/m-16 besides a select fire. In fact ar-15s are literally the same as an m-14 just a different caliber. Now the m-14 these days is considered a DMR but at its inception it was the standard issue battle rifle of the US, before replaced by the m-16.

[Didba 5,256]

1 minute ago, AU80cruiser said:

I wasn't telling you I was telling someone that sounded like they didn't know.

I know, sorry, it's just I've had that told to me many times just becuase people assume liberals/dems don't know anything about guns. I love guns. Own a couple. No ARs but plenty of hunting equipment.