FBI sees rise in US mass shootings

[NomadJoe]

Why do you need a gun? What? You're really going to shoot someone?

They're toys. Shiny things to buy, look at, polish . . .

Emotions. No research, apparently not reading my links above, just drivel that doesn't match the facts.

And remember, the real reason the Constitution allows us to have guns is to protect us from our own government which might someday run amok.

If you read my posts and links above you'll see that places where citizens have guns have the lowest crime rates.

Now please do some research and post some links and stop shooting from the lip with no facts behind it. I worked hard on my posts and your posts are unhelpful and lacking in truth.

What do you need a gun for?

Have you ever used your gun?

You haven't earned the right to ask me those questions. I just told you the real reason that our Constitution guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms.

But it doesn't. Why aren't pro-gun people able to understand basic English?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated Militia for the security of a free state. That is crystal clear to anyone of even average intelligence. They were talking about the military. This is clear especially when you look at the context of the time.

"For more than 200 years, the federal courts have unanimously determined that the Second Amendment concerns only the arming of the people in service to an organized state Militia: it does not guarantee immediate access to guns for private purposes. The nation can no longer afford to let the gun lobbies' distortion of the constitution cripple every reasonable attempt to implement an effective national policy towards guns and crime."

- Joint statement from former U.S. Attourney's General Nicholas Katzenbach, Ramsey Clark, Elliot L. Richardson, Edward Levi, Griffin B. Bell and Benjamin R. Civiletti.[/size]

The NRA Second Amendment myth is "one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by any special interest group that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies--the militias-- would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires."

-[/size]former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren [/size]

The NRA's Fraud: Fabrication of Second Amendment Rights

"The widely held notion that such a right existed was a myth fabricated by the NRA for its own self interest and for the corporate profits of gun manufacturers. "[/size]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/burton-newman/the-nras-fraud-fabricatio_b_3103358.html

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here’s how it happened.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856.html#ixzz3EdfzIV6C

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856.html#.VChVA_mSzqU

When the second amendment was written, muskets shot perhaps 4 rounds a minute, travelling at ~200m/s and could probably hit the side of a barn from 100m. A modern weapon can fire 700-950 rounds a minute at 1200m/s and, in the case of standard rifles like the popular M-16 or AR-15, are point of aim point of impact at 500+m.

[NeverSure]

"When seconds count, the police/army are only minutes away" (as shown by the CEO who shot an attacker in the workplace this week.)

If the UK was flooded with privately held firearms they'd have to be a lot closer than that.

I'm finished with this thread. You won't do research and post facts and links. All we get is your preconceived opinions which are wrong.

I've literally worked my butt off finding facts and posting links and all I get back is nonsense backed by nothing but brainwashed irrelevancy.

I've proved my points if anyone cares to read my links.

Now find someone else who will read your unresearched nonsense and listen to your comments like "get a Canon" etc.

Cheers and no hard feelings.

[MJP]

"When seconds count, the police/army are only minutes away" (as shown by the CEO who shot an attacker in the workplace this week.)

If the UK was flooded with privately held firearms they'd have to be a lot closer than that.

I'm finished with this thread. You won't do research and post facts and links. All we get is your preconceived opinions which are wrong.

I've literally worked my butt off finding facts and posting links and all I get back is nonsense backed by nothing but brainwashed irrelevancy.

I've proved my points if anyone cares to read my links.

Now find someone else who will read your unresearched nonsense and listen to your comments like "get a Canon" etc.

Cheers and no hard feelings.

Common sense doesn't need a link.

[NomadJoe]

This is a great example of the lies, damn lies, and statistics put forth by the gun nuts. Point by point your post is a steaming pile of propaganda.

-snip-

Violent crime dropped drastically in NY and LA since the 90's as more gun legislation was introduced. I will not claim that is solely the result of the tougher gun laws. It would certainly contribute. Most criminologists agree that Clinton is to be credited for the drop in crime by putting thousands more police on the streets.

Damn lies, huh?

The overall violent crime rate in the US has dropped by about 50% since 1990 but you'll never get the lamestream media to report it on a regular basis. They'd rather point to that fact only in reference to places which have restricted gun control.

---------------

The last time the crime rate for serious crime – murder, rape, robbery, assault – fell to these levels, gasoline cost 29 cents a gallon and the average income for a working American was $5,807.

That was 1963.

In the past 20 years, for instance, the murder rate in the United States has dropped by almost half, from 9.8 per 100,000 people in 1991 to 5.0 in 2009. Meanwhile, robberies were down 10 percent in 2010 from the year before and 8 percent in 2009.

LINK

------------------

USA JUSTICE

Progress Watch

FBI reports a drop in crime in 2013: why the rate continues to fall

New FBI data confirm a sustained drop in the US crime rate, despite a broader definition of what constitutes rape. Creative policing, better use of data, and community involvement play a role.

LINK

LINK

None of your stats or links make a connection to the effect of gun laws.

National Research Council 2004

The committee found that answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods, however well designed. For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children's behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements.

2010 National Research Council again as well as six years of additional data, found that:

We buttress the NRC's cautious conclusion by showing how sensitive the estimated impact of RTC laws is to different data periods, the use of state versus county data, particular specifications, and the decision to control for state trends. Overall, the most consistent, albeit not uniform, finding to emerge from the array of models is that aggravated assault rises when right to carry laws are adopted. For every other crime category, there is little or no indication of any consistent RTC impact on crime.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1632599

LESS GUNS, LESS CRIME- DEBUNKING THE SELF-DEFENSE MYTH

• Statistically speaking, guns are rarely used in self-defense, and thus cannot be defended on the grounds that they can reliably defuse crimes while they are happening.
• The NRA bases its claim that guns are used millions of times a year in self-defense on a discredited study from 1995 that has not been validated in a single academic paper.
• Concealed Carry Laws are not associated with decreases in crime, and sophisticated analyses show that, in some cases, there is an increase in aggravated assaults associated with concealed carry laws.
• The best studies to date, using proxies to estimate gun availability, show that more guns lead to more crime.

http://www.armedwithreason.com/less-guns-less-crime-debunking-the-self-defense-myth/

[MJP]

This is a great example of the lies, damn lies, and statistics put forth by the gun nuts. Point by point your post is a steaming pile of propaganda.

-snip-

Violent crime dropped drastically in NY and LA since the 90's as more gun legislation was introduced. I will not claim that is solely the result of the tougher gun laws. It would certainly contribute. Most criminologists agree that Clinton is to be credited for the drop in crime by putting thousands more police on the streets.

Damn lies, huh?

The overall violent crime rate in the US has dropped by about 50% since 1990 but you'll never get the lamestream media to report it on a regular basis. They'd rather point to that fact only in reference to places which have restricted gun control.

---------------

The last time the crime rate for serious crime – murder, rape, robbery, assault – fell to these levels, gasoline cost 29 cents a gallon and the average income for a working American was $5,807.

That was 1963.

In the past 20 years, for instance, the murder rate in the United States has dropped by almost half, from 9.8 per 100,000 people in 1991 to 5.0 in 2009. Meanwhile, robberies were down 10 percent in 2010 from the year before and 8 percent in 2009.

LINK

------------------

USA JUSTICE

Progress Watch

FBI reports a drop in crime in 2013: why the rate continues to fall

New FBI data confirm a sustained drop in the US crime rate, despite a broader definition of what constitutes rape. Creative policing, better use of data, and community involvement play a role.

LINK

LINK

None of your stats or links make a connection to the effect of gun laws.

National Research Council 2004

The committee found that answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods, however well designed. For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children's behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements.

2010 National Research Council again as well as six years of additional data, found that:

We buttress the NRC's cautious conclusion by showing how sensitive the estimated impact of RTC laws is to different data periods, the use of state versus county data, particular specifications, and the decision to control for state trends. Overall, the most consistent, albeit not uniform, finding to emerge from the array of models is that aggravated assault rises when right to carry laws are adopted. For every other crime category, there is little or no indication of any consistent RTC impact on crime.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1632599

Good quote from your Huff Post link above . . .

"For more than 200 years, the federal courts have unanimously determined that the Second Amendment concerns only the arming of the people in service to an organized state Militia: it does not guarantee immediate access to guns for private purposes. The nation can no longer afford to let the gun lobbies' distortion of the constitution cripple every reasonable attempt to implement an effective national policy towards guns and crime."

[MJP]

Also . . .

In all foreign wars during our history about 650,000 soldiers died. In the 45 years since Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were assassinated in 1968, there have been over 1.3 million deaths in our country caused by firearms.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/burton-newman/the-nras-fraud-fabricatio_b_3103358.html

That is staggering!

[bendejo]

Here's the way it works.

Some sicko shoots up a public place.

The media declares a public outrage. The left blames it on guns, the right blames that dark-skinned villain who has usurped the White house.

And then wingnut media (websites, mass emails. etc) again sounds the warning: He's coming for our guns! (HCFOG)

Within days the gun shops have empty shelves. Not a bad business to be in.

I read an article recently that the gun shops have been hurting. There hasn't been a big headline mass shooting in US for over a year, and businesses which have been doing well with since 2008 ( with HCFOG alerts every few months) are now stuck with huge inventories.

(caution: the following paragraph contains sarcasm)

This is further proof of Obama's anti-business sentiments. And everyone knows He wants to seize all guns to allow the UN to take over the country

Curious thing is that the publicly-held companies that manufacture guns and ammo haven't shown much gain from this madness.

[ClutchClark]

Here's the way it works.

Some sicko shoots up a public place.

The media declares a public outrage. The left blames it on guns, the right blames that dark-skinned villain who has usurped the White house.

And then wingnut media (websites, mass emails. etc) again sounds the warning: He's coming for our guns! (HCFOG)

Within days the gun shops have empty shelves. Not a bad business to be in.

I read an article recently that the gun shops have been hurting. There hasn't been a big headline mass shooting in US for over a year, and businesses which have been doing well with since 2008 ( with HCFOG alerts every few months) are now stuck with huge inventories.

(caution: the following paragraph contains sarcasm)

This is further proof of Obama's anti-business sentiments. And everyone knows He wants to seize all guns to allow the UN to take over the country

Curious thing is that the publicly-held companies that manufacture guns and ammo haven't shown much gain from this madness.

You've actually hit the mark pretty well with this piece...and you are correct about huge inventories. For the first time in a couple of years, its possible to find ammunition on the shelves again.

But the prices are still ridiculously high.

[bendejo]

I'm in Oregon at the moment. You can't buy a new pistol for less than around $450, at least not in the sporting goods shops I've been in. There's always the pawnshops.

Don't know about ammo prices, but the shelves are packed.

My guess is a lot of people are praying for the NRA to issue a new HCFOG alert.

But maybe the sort of people who subscribe to this fear can't afford more guns, and maybe that's how they end up in the pawnshop.

[MJP]

I'm in Oregon at the moment. You can't buy a new pistol for less than around $450, at least not in the sporting goods shop I've been in. There's always the pawnshops.

Don't know about ammo prices, but the shelves are packed.

My guess is a lot of people are praying for the NRA to issue a new HCFOG alert.

But maybe the sort of people who subscribe to this fear can't afford more guns, and maybe that's how they end up in the pawnshop.

How are tinned beans sales at the moment?

[ClutchClark]

I'm in Oregon at the moment. You can't buy a new pistol for less than around $450, at least not in the sporting goods shop I've been in. There's always the pawnshops.

Don't know about ammo prices, but the shelves are packed.

My guess is a lot of people are praying for the NRA to issue a new HCFOG alert.

But maybe the sort of people who subscribe to this fear can't afford more guns, and maybe that's how they end up in the pawnshop.

Ha, they couldn't afford them a couple years ago either but that didn't stop them ;-)

Many folks bought the guns but can't afford to fire the ammo.

True story.

[CMNightRider]

Hmm, perhaps you can help me out here, because I cannot recall a single case in the US in which a nutcase cut off someone's head...

Could it have anything to do with the call to behead westerners in their home countries? I dunno, perhaps you can fill us in...

http://www.iraqinews.com/arab-world-news/urgent-isis-calls-supporters-kill-civilians-anti-isis-coalition-countries-behead-egyptian-soldiers/

Why is this difficult for you to understand? He reacted to losing his job. Immediately after losing his job he went "postal". This was not an attack based on religious ideology.

I suppose you just really really want to make a point and so you hammer the facts into a different shape to do so.

It seems stabbing and then cutting a co-workers head off is an over reaction to just loosing his job. The fact this guy is a recent convert to Islam, and the fact he was trying to recruit others to join this religious cult indicates his religious ideology may have played a role. This is another good reason to have a concealed weapons permit.

It is hard to imagine anyone who knows history, would even suggest disarming law abiding citizens in America. Liberals tend to worry more about what others are doing than what they should be doing. Maybe these people should focus their attention on mental health issues, and supporting law enforcement in locking people up that commit crimes using a firearm, instead of whining about America locking up too many criminals.

[ClutchClark]

Hmm, perhaps you can help me out here, because I cannot recall a single case in the US in which a nutcase cut off someone's head...

Could it have anything to do with the call to behead westerners in their home countries? I dunno, perhaps you can fill us in...

http://www.iraqinews.com/arab-world-news/urgent-isis-calls-supporters-kill-civilians-anti-isis-coalition-countries-behead-egyptian-soldiers/

Why is this difficult for you to understand? He reacted to losing his job. Immediately after losing his job he went "postal". This was not an attack based on religious ideology.

I suppose you just really really want to make a point and so you hammer the facts into a different shape to do so.

It seems stabbing and then cutting a co-workers head off is an over reaction to just loosing his job. The fact this guy is a recent convert to Islam, and the fact he was trying to recruit others to join this religious cult indicates his religious ideology may have played a role. This is another good reason to have a concealed weapons permit.

It is hard to imagine anyone who knows history, would even suggest disarming law abiding citizens in America. Liberals tend to worry more about what others are doing than what they should be doing. Maybe these people should focus their attention on mental health issues, and supporting law enforcement in locking people up that commit crimes using a firearm, instead of whining about America locking up too many criminals.

All indicators are he was a whackjob. Whackjobs occasionally latch onto a religion with tremendous fervor for some reason--the tattoo of Jesus on his chest suggests as much. Maybe he did intend to decapitate her in an Islamic fashion, but police don't think so in the most recent articles I could locate that were not rightwing Armageddon stuff.

I read that the workplace did not allow firearms, including CC, which is very standard at most workplaces (even in Redneckville, OK) so an employee would have to weigh the odds of workplace violence at some future date against losing their job and paycheck today for breaking Employment Conduct guidelines. That would have to be a personal decision.

I do wish Americans would show greater support for professional law enforcement, but everybody from screaming liberal to paranoid militia republican hates police. One need look no further than the recent sniper ambush.

I miss the old America, even before the first wingnut went Postal back in the 80's.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed.

[CMNightRider]

^^ But have you ever used your gun?

What do you care if he has used a gun before? Most people who served in the military or law enforcement, enjoy shooting and understands the need to keep a firearm in their home. If you don't like guns, don't buy one. Why would you be concerned about law abiding citizens in America, who owns a firearm?

[bendejo]

> Many folks bought the guns but can't afford to fire the ammo

If that's happening in Oregon then I can guess why -- they spend all their money on cigarettes.

It's almost as bad as Indonesia. Maybe not everybody smokes, but it sure smells that way. Even the organic produce/gluten free/lactose free/sugar free etc crowd can't get enough of them. Go figure.

$8 per pack, 2 packs per day. That's nearly $6,000 per year.

And then there's the cost of beer...

[ClutchClark]

Delete

[SilverBeast]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Quote

"Two-thirds of incidents ended before police arrived, though only one ended when an armed citizen not working as a security guard responded with gunfire."

I think this clearly proves that there is a need for less gun control. If everyone would carry (preferably concealed) fully automatic weapons, I can garantee more than one of these incidents would have been stopped by a citizen...

Fully Automatic Weapons? Do you even know what that means?

Quote

Automatic weapons with extended magazines should be a birth right and handed to citizens as soon as they pop out of the baby maker. Heavier weapons such as 50 caliber machine guns and hand grenades should also be permanent additions in every house. Tanks should be made available to everyone and each neighborhood should have an Apache gunship stationed nearby ready for use.

We all know that if there is a cloud of poison gas in the air killing people, the correct response is to add more poison gas in order to equalize and negate the threat. Yes, more guns, that must be the answer.

This isn't even logical to the conversation at hand.

Quote

Quote

"Two-thirds of incidents ended before police arrived, though only one ended when an armed citizen not working as a security guard responded with gunfire."

I think this clearly proves that there is a need for less gun control. If everyone would carry (preferably concealed) fully automatic weapons, I can garantee more than one of these incidents would have been stopped by a citizen...

Completely illogical, as all pro-gun rationalizations are.

Arm the public and except the number of "active shooter" incidents and accidental shooting deaths, especially among children, to skyrocket.

Also, just because they can, "everyone" wouldn't carry. Perhaps a few more people would, but most people don't feel the need or have the interest. Most people are rational.

The people that commit mass shootings are expecting to be killed. Knowing there is a better chance that someone might be shooting back is no deterrent to these people in the mental state they are in. It would actually be more of a draw. It would make it more "fun" for them.

Actually "Active Shooter" incidents would go down. Criminals do an evaluation of how likely they are to be caught or suffer punishment before they do a crime. Many won't try if the know they'll be shot in short order.

Accidental firing is also rather rare.

No it would not be more "fun" for them. It would be less fun for them. Many of them that go out all crazy that are prepared to die are aiming for a high body count and thus pick places that are "Gun Free Zones". Sandy Hook was a gun free zone, Fort Hood was a gun free zone, Virginia Tech (Both times) was a gun free zone, Aurora movie theater was a gun free zone.... See a trend?

Quote

Quote

The women alone who shoots burglars and rapists and saves herself never seem to get in the news. Or the neighbor who grabs a shotgun and runs to save a neighbor from bodily harm never makes the news.

The truth is the average time it takes the Police to arrive in most cities is 15 minutes to 45 minutes, depending on how many police persons have been laid off due to financial restraints.

Who can wait that long in an emergency? Or you call 911 and you are put on hold!

Crime always accelerates in the US in no gun cities like NY, and LA.

This is a great example of the lies, damn lies, and statistics put forth by the gun nuts. Point by point your post is a steaming pile of propaganda.

The reason why the "women alone who shoots burglars and rapists and saves herself never seem to get in the news" is because that very rarely ever happens. It is much more common for people to accidentally shoot themselves, their kids to get a hold of their gun and shot themselves or a friend, or for the gun owner to shoot their own teenage son or daughter climbing in the bedroom window after sneaking out.

The actual truth is response times to violent crimes in progress in urban and suburban areas (90% of the population) is about 4 minutes.

Violent crime dropped drastically in NY and LA since the 90's as more gun legislation was introduced. I will not claim that is solely the result of the tougher gun laws. It would certainly contribute. Most criminologists agree that Clinton is to be credited for the drop in crime by putting thousands more police on the streets.

4 Minutes is an awful long time. When seconds count, The police are just minutes away.

Far more women defend themselves compared to accidental shootings. You've never even tried to get the data for that. Tons of self defense incidents aren't ever reported either.

Quote

I support the following...

1. RFID chip in the body of each citizen.

2. If you don't have a chip, then you can't do ANYTHING. Like being naked in the woods with only 2 wet sticks to make fire

3. Hello Kitty missile system targeted to each owners RFID chip. If you break any law--the missile is launched. Because of possible collateral damage, sub-dermal cyanide capsules are an option.

4. Each of the 830,000 British expats living in the USA are forced to watch Rambo movies until complete gun boner is acheived--then they are chipped and issued a weapon.

5. We then invade Mexico.

Well there it is...They Stupidest thing I'm gonna read today...

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/e3/0f/cf/e30fcf1c1462d3223da084d19c18d0d1.jpg

Quote

Quote

It never ceases to amaze me when there is a police shooting in the news, or as in this case, the FBI reports a rise in mass shooting incidents, the liberals come out of the wood work ringing their hands and whining about more gun control. Some of the more loony liberals even call for the confiscation of all firearms in America. Huh???

Apparently the mere mention of the word "gun" puts many of these people into a hysterical rant about the NRA and even the Tea Party. I have even read comments like, "its too bad America can't do what Australia did.

Lets look at what Australia did. They took firearms away from law abiding citizens, and now the only people with guns are law enforcement and criminals. If some fool breaks into a persons home in Australia, the home owner better not harm the person breaking into their home. If they do, they will be held accountable for any injuries this fool receives. In most communities in America, if a criminal breaks into someones home, and the home owner shoots them, the home owner will get a pat on the back. Good job :-)

Why reference a highly successful program which contradicts the point you are trying to make? That is the definition of "loony."

Firearms in the home only provide a false sense of security.

Myth #1: They're coming for your guns.

Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1.

Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people.

Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higherthan those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements. Update: A recent study looking at 30 years of homicide data in all 50 states found that for every one percent increase in a state's gun ownership rate, there is a nearly one percent increase in its firearm homicide rate.

ownership-death630.png

Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society.

Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.

• Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times morethan those without.

• In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.

Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.

Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0

• Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5

Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.

Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.

• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.

• 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.

• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.

Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.

Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.

• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found thatmore than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.

• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

Myth #7: Guns make women safer.

Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.

• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.

• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

Myth #8: "Vicious, violent video games" deserve more blame than guns.

Fact-check: So said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre after Newtown. So what's up with Japan?

Attachment gun.JPG

Myth #9: More and more Americans are becoming gun owners.

Fact-check: More guns are being sold, but they're owned by a shrinking portion of the population.

• About 50% of Americans said they had a gun in their homes in 1973. Today,about 45% say they do. Overall, 35% of Americans personally own a gun.

• Around 80% of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each.

Myth #10: We don't need more gun laws—we just need to enforce the ones we have.

Fact-check: Weak laws and loopholes backed by the gun lobby make it easier to get guns illegally.

• Around 40% of all legal gun sales involve private sellers and don't require background checks. 40% of prison inmates who used guns in their crimes got them this way.

• An investigation found 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check.

• 20% of licensed California gun dealers agreed to sell handguns to researchers posing as illegal "straw" buyers.

• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives did not have apermanent director for 7 years, due to an NRA-backed requirement that the Senate approve nominees.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

Some day, common sense will prevail and America will do exactly what Australia has done. The din of the fanatical, ignorant, and indoctrinated must eventually fade to the rational, reasonable and compassionate. It is an evolutionary imperative.

Aint that a bunch of crap.

Myth 1: Places that rank high on that map get statistically skewed because of how few people are actually in the state.

For example:

Wyoming: 21 homicides in 2012. Source: http://trib.com/news/local/casper/wyoming-s-homicide-rate-returns-to-recent-average/article_90ed0976-9707-5693-918d-ebf3568d3c51.html

New York: 417 homicide in 2012, 333 in 2013. Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/30/new-york-city-murder-rate-2013_n_4520192.html

Personally I'd pick living in Wyoming over New York by a long shot!

Myth 2: "People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns." Notice what they do there? They focus specifically on murders committed with guns. So a populace with lots of guns kills more people --with guns-- compared to a populace that doesn't have guns. But they ignore the more important question of which populace actually kills more people in total? Perhaps despite the fact that gun toting societies kill with guns the disarmed populaces kill more people by other means. The presence or lack of guns is not the leading factor in the motives for murder. In fact the presence of guns is hardly ever the motive for a homicide. There is some other reason for the murder and a gun just happens to get used in that. Removing the guns from that situation does not remove the motive for the murder.

Myth two is cherry picking data at its finest.

Myth 3: "Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times morethan those without." Wow. Astounding huh? Doesn't ask how many times non-concealed-handgun people threatened or assaulted others. Doesn't compare the overall likelyhood to commit crime between concealed carry people and none concealed carry people....

Myth 4: "Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0"

Well that is just a plain lie.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-that-were-stopped-by-someone-wit#2d2vnax

There are tons of shootings that get stopped. They are probably playing on the numbers though. To be a "mass shooting" in the states it has to be 3 or more shot. When a civilian intervenes the shooting incident is stopped before it ever gets to the "mass shooting" number of 3.

And really, if there is an active shooter who comes into your workplace looking for a high body count and there is a gun in your coworkers desk loaded and ready to go are you going to say to yourself, "Bah, I won't need that. Armed Civilians never stop a mass shooting anyway!". Bullshit, you'll pick up that gun and use it to the best of your ability to save your life and anyone else's life you can too!

Myth 5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.

That really depends on what you do. Don't leave guns around so kids can pick them up an play with them. Teach your kids how to safely handle a gun and know how to empty them. Its really not that hard. And the stats presented are bogus. Some estimates are that guns are used in self defence 2,000,000 times a year in the USA. That is only 1 in 200 people a year also. Am I to believe there are 22,000,000 Suicide "attempts" with guns? Typically there aren't suicide "attempts" with guns. They are highly effective suicide toos.

Myth 6: Carrying a gun for self defense makes you safer.

Well, if this is true then we need to disarm the police. I mean, they'll be safer if they don't have a gun on them by your logic!

"Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime." This is a red herring. It might suggest you are more likely to shoot somebody in an argument but has no bearing on your being more or less safe because you are carrying.

"In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument." I'm calling bullshit on that. How could 50% of Gun owners use their guns in an aggressive manner not be met by people then using theirs in a defensive manner? The math doesn't line up. Funny how its also just "In one Survey".

Myth 7: Guns make women safer.

"Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers." That all comes down to motive. Random male strangers don't typically have motive compared to whatever failings husbands, boyfriends and ex-partners have. Also, be careful how this myth title reads, "Guns make women safer." Why doesn't is say, "Women with guns are safer!". Those women should have something to defend themselves with!

Myth 8: Comparing Japan to the USA.

Those are significantly different cultures. The underlying effects of what causes crime is a far bigger factor here then simply the presence of guns.

Myth 9: More and more American's are becoming gun owners.

50% in 1973.

45% in 2013.

So lets do some math...

50% of 211,000,000 = 105,500,000 people with guns.

45% of 316,000,000 = 142,200,000 people with guns.

I'd say more American's are becoming gun owners. Funny how they are trying to do some creative math though with the percentages.

http://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table

Myth 10: More gun laws needed.

False. Understanding the motives for crimes and causes of criminal activity is more important then useless gun laws. Even if you remove all the guns you'd only make the law abiding citizens easier prey for the criminals.

[SilverBeast]

The Quoting on this forum is messed up. If I take a long time writing stuff up it doesn't want to post it properly....Figure it out I guess. I quoted 6 different people...

[bendejo]

Silver, you didn't really expect us to read all that, did you?

[chuckd]

Silver. I make six different posts. It is much less frustrating.

[ClutchClark]

Silver, you didn't really expect us to read all that, did you?

Silver, it might be time to cut down on the caffeine.

Agree that multi-quotes can be a problem...sometimes doing a preview post before actually posting can help.

Especially when you have put so much effort into it.

Better luck next time.

[NomadJoe]

The Quoting on this forum is messed up. If I take a long time writing stuff up it doesn't want to post it properly....Figure it out I guess. I quoted 6 different people...

If you aren't going to use the quote feature, at least change your font to red or something so we can differentiate it from the quoted post. I am not going to try to read that thing either.

EDIT: I just looked at the link you gave which you say refutes the claim that no mass shootings have been stopped by private persons carrying concealed weapons. 5 out of 6 examples were off duty police, not private citizens. One was a person who had knives, not guns. So if the rest of your argument is as week as that, I'de say it's probably not even worth reading.

I did, however, like the comment at the bottom of that link you provided:

"Lol cool a 6 year old study. How about stop re-hashing the same one study and go do some actual research? More to-date studies here and they are pretty resounding...the gun culture kills people:

election.princeton.edu/2012/12/22/scientific-americans-gun-error/

boston.cbslocal.com/2013/09/17/bu-study-connects-gun-ownership-with-gun-related-deaths/

○ Harvard - http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/newsplus/report-finds-states-with-highest-gun-violence-have-weakest-gun-laws/

www.dukemagazine.duke.edu/article/straight-shooting

○ University of Wisconsin - http://libguides.uwgb.edu/guns

○ University of Minnesota - http://sph.umn.edu/a-public-health-response-to-gun-violence/

gunviolence.emerson.edu/

○ University of Washington - http://sph.washington.edu/news/closeup/profile.asp?content_ID=2031

○ Penn State -http://sites.psu.edu/michellebingertrclblog/2013/03/14/psychology-and-gun-control/

[chuckd]

Following are two different approaches looking at the CDC/FBI report leading this discussion and the article by the NY Times.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

CDC, FBI: BICYCLE AND FALLING DEATHS FAR EXCEED DEATHS FROM 'MASS SHOOTINGS'

by AWR HAWKINS 2 Oct 2014, 1:11 AM PDT

Death statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) coupled with crime statistics from the FBI show that bicycle and falling deaths far exceed deaths from "mass shootings."

For example, on September 24 the FBI released a study showing there were 64 incidents of "mass killings" (mass shootings) for the years 2000 through 2013. The gunmen in these incidents took the lives of 418 people.

<<snip>>

For example, the CDC bicycle-related injury report for 2010 shows that almost twice as many people died on bicycles in that one year than were killed in "mass shootings" during the 14 years studied by the FBI. Thus, while there were 418 deaths in "mass shootings" from 2000 to 2013, there were 800 deaths by bicycle in 2010 alone.

Moreover, there "were an estimated 515,000 emergency department visits" due to bicycle accidents.

And CDC death statistics for 2010 show there were 26,009 deaths from "falling" for that year alone. That's right--26,009 deaths in one year from falls from ladders, counters, roofs, mountains, etc.

Article here: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/01/CDC-FBI-Bicycle-And-Falling-Deaths-Far-Exceed-Deaths-From-Mass-Shootings

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

...and...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

FBI: MORE PEOPLE MURDERED WITH FIRE THAN IN MASS SHOOTINGS

by AWR HAWKINS 2 Oct 2014, 1:23 AM PDT

According to FBI crime statistics and the bureau's recent study on "active shooter" incidents (ACIs) in the US, far more people are murdered with fire than are killed in mass shootings.

Moreover, the number of people killed each year with "personal weapons," such as "feet" and "fists," nearly eclipses the number of people killed in mass shootings.

For example, the stats show 580 murders committed with fire from 2006 through 2011 alone. That's 162 more murders by fire in six years than the total number of murders via mass shooters for the 14-year period studied by the FBI.

Moreover, there were 4,873 murders committed with "personal weapons" like "feet" and "fists" and 10,769 murders committed with "knives and cutting instruments" from 2006 through 2011 alone. That is an average of 812 persons killed each of those years with weapons like "feet" and "fists" and an average of 1,794.8 stabbed to death annually during that same period.

But The New York Times' headline on September 24 read: "FBI Confirms Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000."

Article here: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/09/29/FBI-More-People-Murdered-With-Fire-Than-In-Mass-Shootings