Drunk drivers kill more Americans each year than terrorists dream of killing; yet we tolerate the former and send the Army after the latter. More Americans have been killed in chasing 9/11 terrorists than were killed on 9/11.
But we do respond to all of these incidents with laws designed to reduce the risk of future occurrences. Sometimes the laws work - your car today is a 100 times safer than your father's car bc we finally decided to make cars crashworthy. Other times, as with the SAFE Law, they probably do little to reduce the harm at issue. Still a little is better than nothing, and unless you can convince me that citizens need Bushmasters with 100 round mags for self defense, I'm voting for the little.in stopping them, according to a new study for the years 2000-2013 released by the FBI (ok I added the last part based on the stats).
The study finds that there were 160 ”active shooter incidents” ( despite the technical rhetoric in the report, for all practical purposes these were “mass shootings in public places,” excluding gang violence) in the US in this time period. That’s 11 each year. And the incidents jumped from 6.4 for the first 7 years to 16.4 in the last 7 years. Over 1000 innocents killed.
Let’s stop right here for a minute. Can you imagine the hysteria if there were 11 terrorists attacks each year in the US? Megan Kelly and Hannity would lead each night. “It’s all Obama’s fault. He should have left troops in New York, Chicago, L.A. and ….”
But we can blame Mr. Obama for doing nothing on gun control. The NRA, of course, has championed the notion that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have lots of good guys with guns in the vicinity. So how many citizens with lawful carry permits played a role in the 160 shootings? The answer is ONE. (There were 4 other incidents where security guards got off some shots.)
Now admittedly, this study does not reach routine street crime and sample thank goodness is small. But I predict the stats would be about the same if we included all public shootings. The average citizen is not Clint Eastwood. If he encounters a mass shooter, or even an armed robber or gang member, he is most likely going to panic and hide if he can, and not confront the shooter. Think of Fredo in the Godfather who couldn’t even get his gun out of his holster as they were shooting the Godfather.
So it’s time to put to rest the “guns deter crime” argument for public carry. If public carry is useless to deter or resolve mass shootings and street crime, isn’t it wise policy to enact assault weapon bans and prohibit large capacity magazines as New York and a few other states have done? Let’s at least reduce the lethality of the weapons available as best we can.
Have I finally persuaded everybody
in order to use a firearm in defense.
A crazed mass murderer could have already shot 10 people and have 100+ children under the age of 9 in immediate peril of his trigger finger; but if you take him out with your pistol & civilian concealed carry permit from a position of NOT being in immediate peril yourself you'd be imprisoned for the rest of your life.
Prior/existing anti-gun legislation and Political Correctness has muddied everything to a point of inane stupidity.
Or I should say, "would do"' in your 11 terrorist attack scenarios.
Mass shootings only represent approx 1% of all homicides in the U.S. I believe that the media blows these very infrequent occurrences out of proportion as to make liberals think it is a bigger problem than it really is, much the same way some conservatives over hype the terrorist threat.
Now I don't believe bans work because murderous, evil, twisted fks don't give a rodents ass about any "ban." They will go around it, purchase multiple weapons if need be, buy off the black market or use any of the currently owned legal guns that would not be turned in if there was a ban.
And I would argue, if I were a liberal, that Obama has done far worse than simply not taking on gun control but to enhance the desire for guns by giving into the NRA influence when he posed with a rifle at a photo op. Now of course a rifle and an automatic weapon are vastly different but he still has on occasion given a "pro gun" impression based on the politics of it.
Look Mari, there is a reason that the NRA has so much pull. It's because they are reflecting most peoples opinion about gun rights and even in cases where polling may suggest a majority or plurality in favor of assault weapons ban, the intensity gap is widely in favor of gun rights advocates.
Nearly once a month? Sixteen in the last 7 years?
I don’t follow your thinking at all here. I do believe that there is some degree of hysteria when the issue is “will ISIS attack the homeland.” That is pure speculation. But the mass shootings are recorded facts and this is way too many. Or to put it another way, this is easily enough to require some kind law enforcement response - and that is what the assault weapon/high capacity mag laws are designed to do. Even if these laws only reduce mass shootings by say 10%, or reduce casualties by 10%, are they still worth having on the books?
No lawful citizen needs an assault weapon or high capacity mag to defend himself. Agree
And factor in 300+ MILLION guns, and that bolsters my point further.
And of course I disagree with you. It really depends on the threat, doesn't it Mari? All threats are not the same.
If one person is coming at me with intent to kill, yeah, I could neutralize that threat with a handgun with 6 bullets. But if 8 guys are coming at me? Gimme the fkin automatic weapon. lol
Which weapon would you rather have to defend you and your family in that second scenario? The answer is obvious.
Then tack on gun rights and in addition, the fact that bans wont have any real world affect other than to make liberals feel like they have done something and the question as far as I am concerned is not even a close call but I will concede it is debatable point and needs to be debated
How come the 80 or so that die in mass shootings are more of a concern than the 8000 or more that are murdered every year? One percent of gun violence is mass shootings. Why the outcry? It s a serious problem but has more to do with the values held by our fellow citizens than the weapon used to commit the crime. If we don't fix the root cause the killing won't stop.
The study finds that there were 160 ”active shooter incidents” ( despite the technical rhetoric in the report, for all practical purposes these were “mass shootings in public places,” excluding gang violence) in the US in this time period. That’s 11 each year. And the incidents jumped from 6.4 for the first 7 years to 16.4 in the last 7 years. Over 1000 innocents killed.
Let’s stop right here for a minute. Can you imagine the hysteria if there were 11 terrorists attacks each year in the US? Megan Kelly and Hannity would lead each night. “It’s all Obama’s fault. He should have left troops in New York, Chicago, L.A. and ….”
But we can blame Mr. Obama for doing nothing on gun control. The NRA, of course, has championed the notion that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have lots of good guys with guns in the vicinity. So how many citizens with lawful carry permits played a role in the 160 shootings? The answer is ONE. (There were 4 other incidents where security guards got off some shots.)
Now admittedly, this study does not reach routine street crime and sample thank goodness is small. But I predict the stats would be about the same if we included all public shootings. The average citizen is not Clint Eastwood. If he encounters a mass shooter, or even an armed robber or gang member, he is most likely going to panic and hide if he can, and not confront the shooter. Think of Fredo in the Godfather who couldn’t even get his gun out of his holster as they were shooting the Godfather.
So it’s time to put to rest the “guns deter crime” argument for public carry. If public carry is useless to deter or resolve mass shootings and street crime, isn’t it wise policy to enact assault weapon bans and prohibit large capacity magazines as New York and a few other states have done? Let’s at least reduce the lethality of the weapons available as best we can.
Have I finally persuaded everybody?
that if it is true that undermines my use of the study to malign public carry
No one says that mass shooting victims are any more tragic than other murders but surely you agree that reducing the lethality of the weapon plays a greater role in the mass shooting context than the individual murder context. That is the rationale for banning these weapons that shoot so fast and the mags that permit so many to be killed
Or assault weapons? If you want to say an assault weapon ban and magazine limits at say 10 rounds will save lives you need proof. Might they, yes. Could someone kill just as many with gun holding 10 yes. When you look at police response times to these shooting; I mean them actually entering the building to stop them, I d guess it's over 5 minutes in almost every one. If it takes a few seconds to reload or if the shooter has more then one gun it all goes out the window.
Mental health and background checks or more specifically background checks tied to mental health are the best things we can do to prevent mass shootings. Almost every one I can think of in the past five years involved huge red flags, things cops missed, things mental health professionals didn't report, things schools missed.
We let people drive because it's an acceptable risk. We allow big pharma to make and sell drugs that kill many more people in a yr than mass shootings have since 1960. We allow alcohol to be sold even though more people die from that in a single day than in mass shootings since 1980. Some doing it to themselves, but innocent people too. In fact alcohol probably does more damage to our society in a week than firearms do in a year. Smokin is the same. In fact alcohol and smoking kill more people each day than assault weapons have since 1990. Roughly 530,000 people die from smoking and alcohol related causes each yr. Let's say 5% are innocent victims of other people's vices. That would be roughly 75 people per day. But the 432 killed in mass shootings since 2000 are our biggest safety concern. Or the 100 or so of them killed by assault weapons?
No one says that mass shooting victims are any more tragic than other murders but surely you agree that reducing the lethality of the weapon plays a greater role in the mass shooting context than the individual murder context. That is the rationale for banning these weapons that shoot so fast and the mags that permit so many to be killed.
before we take action? See the problem?
That’s why I don’t think it is particularly important to know how many mass shootings – so far – have involved the use of high capacity mags or assault rifles. It is only logical that anyone who plans a mass public shooting would choose these weapons.
But if hindsight is important , other studies have found that “assault
weapons, high-capacity magazines, or both were used in over half of all mass
shootings.” Indeed, this very point has already been litigated in the SAFE Act case where the judge made factual findings that assult guns and high capacity mags have been used often enough to provide a rational basis for the ban. Of course this case is on appeal but so far that is what we have:
“the SAFE Act applies
only to a subset of firearms with characteristics New York State has
determined to be particularly dangerous and unnecessary for self-defense; it
does not totally disarm New York's citizens; and it does not meaningfully
jeopardize their right to self-defense. Current owners of the now-regulated
weapons may lawfully possess them so long as they register the weapons with
the State. They may also possess 10-round magazines, and, most places, they
may load those magazines with up to seven rounds of ammunition. And, at
certain designated areas, they may load the weapon with 10 rounds. Although
the Act does make unlawful future purchases or sales of assault weapons, New
Yorkers can still purchase, own, and sell all manner of semiautomatic
weapons that lack the features outlawed by the SAFE Act. Indeed, Plaintiffs
themselves concede that attributes of the banned weapons are "present in
easily-substituted unbanned, counterpart firearms."
…
The recent mass shooting in Newtown, CT, which prompted the quick passage
of this law, was no exception. The shooter armed himself with a .223-caliber
Bushmaster Model XM15 rifle and a 30-round magazine. See Connecticut State
Police Press Release, Jan. 18, 2013, available at
http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284 ("The shooter used the
Bushmaster .223 to murder 20 children and six adults inside the school; he
used a handgun to take his own life inside the school. No other weapons were
used in this crime.").
Of course, this is only one incident. But it is nonetheless illustrative.
Studies and data support New York's view that assault weapons are often used
to devastating effect in mass shootings. (See Koper Decl., ¶¶ 11-14; Zimring
Decl. ¶¶ 15-22; Docket Nos. 67, 68). For example, an exhaustive study of
mass shootings in America, defined as the murder of four or more people in a
single incident, found that there have been at least 62 mass shootings
across the country since 1982.[fn14] Mark Follman, et al., A Guide to Mass
Shootings in America, Mother Jones, updated Feb. 27, 2013,
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map.
Frighteningly, "twenty-five of these mass shootings have occurred since
2006, and seven of them took place in 2012." Id. In the mass shooting with
the most victims, at an Aurora, Colorado
movie theater, police say the shooter used an AR-15 type weapon until its
100-round barrel magazine jammed. In all, the study found that assault
weapons, high-capacity magazines, or both were used in over half of all mass
shootings. Id
That said even if we agree that assault weapons were used in roughly 1/2 of all mass shootings averaging roughly 30 deaths a year, 15 being attributable to assault weapons. Even if we figure with a ban the shooting would never have happened (which we know isn't true). Is it worth the effort and cost to save 15 lives a yr? Not to be cold but just being honest. If we eliminated youth football and baseball we d save more children each year. That brings up my other question; with the beheading and stabbing that happened this morning, stopped by a person carrying concealed can you even argue that these killers won't just use what ever is available to them?
That’s why I don’t think it is particularly important to know how many mass shootings – so far – have involved the use of high capacity mags or assault rifles. It is only logical that anyone who plans a mass public shooting would choose these weapons.
But if hindsight is important , other studies have found that “assault
weapons, high-capacity magazines, or both were used in over half of all mass
shootings.” Indeed, this very point has already been litigated in the SAFE Act case where the judge made factual findings that assult guns and high capacity mags have been used often enough to provide a rational basis for the ban. Of course this case is on appeal but so far that is what we have:
“the SAFE Act applies
only to a subset of firearms with characteristics New York State has
determined to be particularly dangerous and unnecessary for self-defense; it
does not totally disarm New York's citizens; and it does not meaningfully
jeopardize their right to self-defense. Current owners of the now-regulated
weapons may lawfully possess them so long as they register the weapons with
the State. They may also possess 10-round magazines, and, most places, they
may load those magazines with up to seven rounds of ammunition. And, at
certain designated areas, they may load the weapon with 10 rounds. Although
the Act does make unlawful future purchases or sales of assault weapons, New
Yorkers can still purchase, own, and sell all manner of semiautomatic
weapons that lack the features outlawed by the SAFE Act. Indeed, Plaintiffs
themselves concede that attributes of the banned weapons are "present in
easily-substituted unbanned, counterpart firearms."
…
The recent mass shooting in Newtown, CT, which prompted the quick passage
of this law, was no exception. The shooter armed himself with a .223-caliber
Bushmaster Model XM15 rifle and a 30-round magazine. See Connecticut State
Police Press Release, Jan. 18, 2013, available at
http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284 ("The shooter used the
Bushmaster .223 to murder 20 children and six adults inside the school; he
used a handgun to take his own life inside the school. No other weapons were
used in this crime.").
Of course, this is only one incident. But it is nonetheless illustrative.
Studies and data support New York's view that assault weapons are often used
to devastating effect in mass shootings. (See Koper Decl., ¶¶ 11-14; Zimring
Decl. ¶¶ 15-22; Docket Nos. 67, 68). For example, an exhaustive study of
mass shootings in America, defined as the murder of four or more people in a
single incident, found that there have been at least 62 mass shootings
across the country since 1982.[fn14] Mark Follman, et al., A Guide to Mass
Shootings in America, Mother Jones, updated Feb. 27, 2013,
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map.
Frighteningly, "twenty-five of these mass shootings have occurred since
2006, and seven of them took place in 2012." Id. In the mass shooting with
the most victims, at an Aurora, Colorado
movie theater, police say the shooter used an AR-15 type weapon until its
100-round barrel magazine jammed. In all, the study found that assault
weapons, high-capacity magazines, or both were used in over half of all mass
shootings. Id.
Drunk drivers kill more Americans each year than terrorists dream of killing; yet we tolerate the former and send the Army after the latter. More Americans have been killed in chasing 9/11 terrorists than were killed on 9/11.
But we do respond to all of these incidents with laws designed to reduce the risk of future occurrences. Sometimes the laws work - your car today is a 100 times safer than your father's car bc we finally decided to make cars crashworthy. Other times, as with the SAFE Law, they probably do little to reduce the harm at issue. Still a little is better than nothing, and unless you can convince me that citizens need Bushmasters with 100 round mags for self defense, I'm voting for the little.
true. Some of the easiest thing we can do to reduce gun violence is ask our criminal justice system to enforce the current gun laws. Increase penalties for felons in possession of firearms, make mental heath reporting mandatory to the ATF. I read some where that in California as of 2013 only 60 some people had been reported and added to the fbi data base barring firearms purchase. You would assume it'd be 10 times that easily, 100 times that. If we don't track mental health and attach it to firearms purchase it is almost impossible to stop some of these shootings. It is truly stunning the number of red flags that could have prevented among others, Giffords, Aurora, Elliot Roger, Adam Lanza.
You have the right to believe the safe act works, I personally think its the wrong track and will do little. Most of the provisions can be bypassed pretty simply with a drill and a couple hours time. The best way to combat all gun violence is either go door to door for all firearms (don't ever see that happening) or close background check loop holes, demand that firearms escalators are prosecuted, violent offenders serve their full sentences, make mental health reporting mandatory to atf. Violent offenders almost universally reoffend and their crimes are almost always worse. Change our position on drug offenses and make more room for violent offenders. I am actually not completely against police being able to take firearms for a period of time based on loved ones reporting. Most of these are things that could be done with our existing laws. Our current government wont do anything much less something on gun control. Maybe it'll change or maybe I'm wrong and the safe act will work. But I can tell you a few things about gun owners, I have almost always voted democratic, I can count on one hand the number of times I have voted republican but I will NOT vote for someone in favor of most of the gun control proposals. I will vote strictly against someone for that reason and MANY gun owners will do the same. I don't see the gun control groups and politicians being reasonable. If they are honest I'd guess 75% want to see a complete firearms ban.
Anything that did not meet the Obama admin agenda of the furtherance of control was left out of the report.
For such a comprehensive study, I found it lacking in much of the expected and more useful data.
First, let’s correct the record on a mistake you made, there were not over 1000 killed. That number was total casualties (killed and wounded).
How many of the locations were classified as gun free zones? Certainly the educational, government and military zones fall into this category. I would expect a high number of the commercial locations to also be gun free zones. The report was silent on this.
Only one outcome as the result of an armed citizen (not counting private security guards), but how many incidents involved an armed citizen who did not participate in the outcome? . The report was silent on this. Only about 5% of the citizenry have a concealed carry permit. I do not know the percentage but I’m sure a low percentage of those authorized actually carry most of the time, and certainly not in the gun free zones.
How many of the shooters obtained their weapons legally? How many of the shooters had been previously screened by the federal background verification system? How many had serious mental health issues? The report was silent on this.
What type of firearms were used? The report was silent on this.
Where’s the Active Shooter data for prior to 2000? The report was silent on this.
-- Modified on 9/25/2014 7:36:11 PM
Spades made the same point. I certainly would agree that, if a substantial number of the shootings were in gun free zones, that would undermine my use of the numbers to malign public carry. Of course, if you are lawfully carrying outside a school and you hear gun shots in the school, I hardly think the gun free nature of the school would deter a citizen from using his gun if he had a mind to do so. But you do make a very good point.
The FBI, of course, was not addressing concealed carry in any way. I was using the report for my own nefarious purposes. As to your other questions, yes we need answers on all of that properly to analyze the other issues. Nonetheless, I predict you will see this report prominently cited in the on-going litigation of the various assault weapon bans
As long as we have the NRA and its paid lobbyists and Republicans in US Congress (remember the Senate minority leader walked with a rifle to a conservative conference) mass shootings will not stop.
No gun laws will work to stop mass shootings. It is the culture that has to change. In order to change the culture, the NRA has to go. NRA is a marketing and lobbying unit for gun manufacturers. Their main goal is sell more guns. They funded the SYG laws in States to increase gun sales. As long as guns are marketed and people are brainwashed in to thinking guns offer protection, the culture will not change.
All the shootings we hear and read everyday are related to crime, family shootings involving fathers, wives, children and grand children, laid off workers shooting people at their workplace and lastly people who claim mental illness going on a shooting spree.
No other developed and civilized country will put up with this nonsense called the Second Amendment. Well Armed militia. My foot. Cowards. Send them to fight the ISIS instead of shooting unarmed women, children and grandchildren, 6 year olds sitting in elementary schools, people in a movie theater, people praying in a temple or just everyday joe and jane working their jobs.
-- Modified on 9/25/2014 9:37:43 PM
Get Nate Silver to run the stats on the probability of an American citizen getting shot during a mass shooting
The country has the highest number of people shot to death by guns than all "developed and civilized" countries in the world combined (many don't have guns). Obviously we are developed but not educated and civilized enough to have value for other people's lives including one's own children. How else can you explain a grandfather shooting and killing a 3 month old grandchild or a mother shooting and killing her own children.
I have seen children die of hunger and disease in poorest countries but not shot by their own father or mother
They let doctors and medical personnel have ALL THE FUN!
I'll never understand how/why mongers on a 'whore-board' get in a twist about reproductive rights. If I suffered a condom failure whilst fucking a provider and she became pregnant I'd sure as shit want her to terminate the pregnancy rather than up-end her life, and mine legally/financially.
World population is nearing 7.3 billion. Were nowhere near running short; let alone "out".
I'll never understand how/why mongers on a 'whore-board' get in a twist about reproductive rights. If I suffered a condom failure whilst fucking a provider and she became pregnant I'd sure as shit want her to terminate the pregnancy rather than up-end her life, and mine legally/financially.
is superior to one in which a fucking nutcase kills his own kids
It is better to die of hunger and starvation than to be in the richest country and get shot by one's own father or mother! That is murder.
They don't have to as there are over 30 million in US living below the poverty line! When Republicans demolish the food stamps, they will starve and die. I cannot get off my mind the sight of homeless rummaging the restaurant dumpsters for left over food early mornings in French Quarter in New Orleans. No TV channel will show this as rest of the world will wonder about this country. It is a common sight in NYC.
I can't think of a better philosophical lesson plan/teaching format than the word of Jesus.
That's not to say the lessons will be absorbed by every mind.
What style of educational format do you suggest?
I would also suggest an in depth geography, economics, and world history lesson to follow the techings of Jesus.
I have seen children die of hunger and disease in poorest countries but not shot by their own father or mother.
Mexico and Russia both have murder rates triple ours if I remember right and no firearms? Why aren't they safer?
Why don't you move if you feel so unsafe with your neighbors maybe having a firearm. There are plenty of places where violent crime rates dwarf our s that don't allow self defense....
Neither of them are advanced and civilized countries that this country claims it is! LOL. Better compare to advanced and civilized countries like UK, Europe, Australia, S. Korea, Singapore and Japan.