1. Shooting sprees are not rare in the United States.
Mother Jones has tracked and mapped every shooting spree in the last three decades. “Since 1982, there have been at least 61 mass murders carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii,” they found. And in most cases, the killers had obtained their weapons legally:
If you recall that map, you'll remember Hawaii, California, Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts are all on the list. What else do they all have in common? Strict gun laws. The map also shows that these incidents happen in areas of dense population.
ReplyDeleteWhat can we conclude from these facts?
1. Gun laws don't have an affect on rates of mass shootings.
2. The correlation between such incidents and dense populations points at a possible cause--the stress of living with lots of other people--that ought to be investigated.
Like everything else you say, gunsuck, that is a lie. Nothing to do with strict or easy gun laws. You gunsucks always make this fake point - Chicago has harsh gun laws, blah, blah, blah. The suburbs do not, and people have cars, so all of that is shit top to bottom.
DeleteThe fact is that most of these were committed with either assault weapons or with high cap mags. That's the thing. Eliminate military weapons. You cannot even have military weapons on military bases - they control guns there very tightly.
Anonymous may not realize that nearly every firearm made has been derived from a military application, and many of those that were developed as a civilian product have been crossed over to military or police use. So you are asking for a complete ban which is un Constitutional. Those you call assault weapons are simply semi auto only rifles that are being demonized and hi capacity mags are irrelevant since most of them used in crimes appear to jam up, causing the perpetrator to have to stop or change tactics.
DeleteI'm lying, even though I use the facts that your side presents? But let's consider what you said:
Delete1. Chicago is in Illinois, in case you've forgotten. That state has strict gun laws. The point of mentioning Chicago is to show that gun-free zones and city-wide bans accomplish nothing. But note that I didn't mention Chicago in my comment. You brought that up.
2. The shooter used handguns with standard-capacity magazines. He may have also used a rifle, but when you yammer about "assault weapons," you should note that Connecticut has a ban on such things and requires a license to purchase a handgun.
The end of the D.C. gun ban proved the point that more gun laws breed more violent crime.
Deletehttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/21/guns-decrease-murder-rates/
From 2008 to 2009, nationwide murder rates dropped 8 to 10%. In D.C., how much did it drop? 25% freaking percent.
So don't give me the gunsucks tell lies crap. You just can't wrap your head around the truth of the situation.
FL, so few citizens got guns during that period after the law changed that they couldn't possibly account for that huge drop. It could have been an anomaly though. Or, perhaps there are other explanations about police procedures or any number of other things. To attribute it to the change in the law is weak.
DeleteMike - I supposed it is impossible to think that, much like a placebo, the deterrent effect could begin even before people were able to 'make ready'? Especially when you consider the following stat's:
DeleteA 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:
• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
But no, find some other way to explain it away - one that fit's within your agenda.
Those are good points, but I don't think they can explain the tremendous change. It must be some change in the policing methods or the types of illegal drugs that became available or more scarce during that time or some change in economic or cultural situations.
DeleteThe .223 has a mag of 30. That is way excessive. such military weapons should be banned.
ReplyDeleteBecause a tiny number of gun owners do something bad with their guns, the vast majority of good gun owners who did nothing wrong must be punished?
DeleteProper gun control is not a punishment. Stop the whining victimism.
DeleteInfringing on the rights of good citizens is a punishment. You're proposing collective punishment for the actions of a tiny number. Consider how you'd respond if bloggers had to be licensed and have their articles reviewed by official censors because a few make hurtful remarks.
DeletePlus comments about the .223 indicate that the mag is quick change. The mag should require a screwdriver to change.
ReplyDeleteI like the screwdriver idea. Screwdrivers for screwballs, that's the thing.
DeleteComments about the .223 mag is that it came off so easily that it was difficult at times to keep it on. This is wrong. We are not in rice paddies killing Charlie here. We are in a safe country, if we can control the gunsucks.
DeleteAnd the difference between killing innocent children in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Connecticut is...?
DeleteThe problem here is not the magazines. The shooter faced unarmed targets. Changing out magazines or switching to a different gun poses no difficulty in that situation. The key point is that the victims were defenseless, thanks to laws that gun control freaks support.
DeleteYes, the female, first-grade teachers who came from posh Connecticut prep schools should have been armed.
DeleteIn other words, those rich people who need to carry because they're the targets of kidnapping? As I've said, we trust them with the lives of children. Why not trust them to defend those lives? I'd even support a special training program. But what your position comes down to is that you don't trust good people.
DeleteMikeb, did you see the report about the teacher who died shielding her students with her own body? You trust her to die for her students. Why don't you trust her to live and fight for them? You're sick. That's the only possible answer.
DeleteThe key point, you lying sack of shit, is that the shootist had access to a bunch of gunz that he used to shoot a bunch of people including 20 children. That's the key point, idiot.
ReplyDeleteWhen schools were not "Gun Free Zones" MOST schools didn't have gunz on campus with the exception of rural campuses or in the hands of law enforcement or security personnel. The NRA (and you cheerleading sociopathz, teh gunzloonz) have made arming the population a priority and you've armed enough of it to make sure that it's dangerous to send your kid to school. Congratulations, asshole.
Obama administration, Congress quietly let school security funds lapse
Deletehttp://www.washingtonguardian.com/washingtons-school-security-failure
And there you have it, it's all Obama's fault.
orlin sellers
This:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/21/guns-decrease-murder-rates/
is from the Moonietimes. It's not an authoritative source and it has no citations. Yeah, yeah, I know it SAYS some stuff but it doesn't link to any data. Saying that, "the FBI says", is not a citation. A citation would include a link to the actual data.
I mean you do know the owner/publisher of the paper thinks he's the messiah, right?
The paper is quoting data from the FBI. The article's an editorial, not a scientific study, but still, if it's false, someone would have shown that in short order. In addition, the religion of the paper's owner has nothing to do with the content of the article.
DeleteYou should spend some time studying the subject of citation. You're failing to grasp the concept, something that surprises me not at all. This fixation that you have sounds like a dementia patient struggling to hold on to the one thing he can remember.
Well lookie here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html
An armed citizen did put an end to a mass shooting. The apologies from the gun control freaks will be entertained and entertaining.
The story I read seemed like a fabrication. Who would admit he'd broken the law and was there with a gun? Also the account I read said he didn't fire and was not responsible for stopping anything.
DeleteOf course you don't like this story. It should be easy to check. If he's lying, we'll get a follow-up soon.
Deleteoh look at this, doesn't fit the lies spread by gun grabber like little mikeynumbers
ReplyDeletehttp://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html
I won't bother waiting for you to admit the truth mikey. you and the rest of the gun grabber have blood on your hands and you know it
Even if the guy's story is true, it proves what I keep saying. Armed concealed carry guys on the scene can rarely stop one of these spree shooters.
DeleteDid you listen? If this story's true, and I'll suspend judgement on that, but if it's true, the wacko saw the good citizen with a gun and gave up the fight. That's typical of these mass shooters. They're cowards.
Delete"The paper is quoting data from the FBI"
ReplyDeleteWrong.
"Between 2008 and 2009, the FBI’s preliminary numbers indicate that murders fell nationally by 10 percent and by about 8 percent in cities that have between 500,000 and 999,999 people. Washington’s population is about 590,000. During that same period of time, murders in the District fell by an astounding 25 percent, dropping from 186 to 140. The city only started allowing its citizens to own handguns for defense again in late 2008."
Is not a quote. If it was a quote it would have these marks, "", one before and one after the "quoted" material. So, you either don't know wtf you're talking about (which is often the case) or you're simply lying (another one of your character flaws) because you know that your fellowgunzloonz will not be interested in looking beyond what appears in the editorial and, as most practitioners of the "Gish Gallop" you're aware that when spews as much bullshit as you people do that it's a fulltime job for someone to refute it all.
But, the fact remains, your comment is FUCKING WRONG. If there was a quote in that editorial then the Moonietimes is using "stealthquotes" only you are able to see. Of course I can spend time looking for their source and find out that they cherry picked it (as gunzloonz are prone to do) or I can just assume that they're spewing bullshit and using bits and pieces from a gummint study without attribution. Yeah, that's prolly where I'm going.
"You should spend some time studying the subject of citation. You're failing to grasp the concept, something that surprises me not at all. This fixation that you have sounds like a dementia patient struggling to hold on to the one thing he can remember."
Really? Well, by all means, provide me with the information that says a citation is something other than, well, citation. You might want to read this:
http://web.psych.washington.edu/writingcenter/writingguides/pdf/howtocite.pdf
or one of the other "About 93,400,000 results (0.34 seconds)" pages/documents that this search term, "HOW TO PROPERLY CITE THE WORK OF OTHERS" turned up here (https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=ie7&q=HOW+TO+PROPERLY+CITE+THE+WORK+OF+OTHERS&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7_____en)
Otoh, you might just continue being the dishonest,ineducable moron that we've come to know and loathe, here at mikeb302000's Venus Flytrap for teh gunzloonz.
Democommie, if your failing brain will allow it, look up indirect quotation and get back to me. I teach citation for a living. What do you do with your time?
Delete