A recent analysis of U.S. gun deaths has found that a majority of mass shootings were related to domestic or family
violence.The analysis
,
performed by Michael Bloomberg's gun violence prevention group,
Everytown for Gun Safety, looked at mass shootings that took place
between January 2009 and July 2014. In that span of five and a half
years, the group identified 110 mass shootings, which were defined as
shootings in which at least four people were murdered with a firearm. Of
those shootings, at least 57 percent were related to domestic or family
violence.Kim Gandy, president of the National Network to End Domestic Violence, said the report serves as sobering evidence for the need to improve gun laws.
"It’s clear that many of these murders were committed by people already barred from gun ownership by federal law -- but that law is full of loopholes, like background checks not being required for private sales, like Craigslist or at gun shows," she said. "It’s shocking that the gun lobby has succeeded in blocking such common-sense solutions, and that there aren’t more members of Congress standing up on the issue."
Under federal law, individuals who have been convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence offense or who are subject to a permanent domestic violence restraining order can’t legally buy or possess firearms. But many guns are purchased without a background check, making
thorough enforcement of current laws all but impossible.In addition, federal gun prohibitions only apply to
situations where the perpetrator is married to the victim, or cohabited
with or has a child with him. Dating partners and convicted stalkers
are not included, and those loopholes allow many domestic abusers to dodge the background check system.According to the Everytown analysis, in one-quarter of the mass shootings in which the perpetrator killed a former or current partner, the perpetrator would not have been barred from owning a firearm.
They must have given their proofreader the day off again. Somehow they seem to claim that the mass shooting at the Navy Yard in DC ISNT a gun free zone. Their definition of gun free zones seems to change with the circumstances. In some, its defined by whether laws in place prohibited carry at the site. In the Navy Yard shooting, the definition becomes whether the shooter picked the site because it was a gun free zone.
ReplyDeleteThe shooting at Ft. Hood doesn't mention that it was a gun free zone, and they also don't mention it in the entry for the Newtown shooting. Their use of changing definitions would necessitate an examination to see if the total numbers are off.
They also seem ok with including drug house shootings. One interesting bit of information comes right from their report,
"Mass shootings represent a small share of total U.S. firearm homicides. Less than
one percent of gun murder victims recorded by the FBI in 2012 were killed in incidents with four or more victims."
"Assault weapons or high capacity magazines were used in at least 14 of the incidents (13%)."
http://everytown.org/article/analysis-of-mass-shootings/
The link to the report is at the link above. So we have 13% of less than 1% of the total homicides. And this is what we are basing advocacy for a ban on certain size magazines and assault weapons?
Those are surprising percentages, but so what? Background checks and magazine capacity limits would save lives. That's the point.
DeleteYou don't think one life saved is enough to advocate for a ban smaller magazine capacity and assault weapons?
ReplyDeleteOf course we know it is more than one life saved.
Again you argue numbers and seem to accept deaths because you think the way they count deaths is flawed. Amazing how easy you explain away gun shot deaths.
"You don't think one life saved is enough to advocate for a ban smaller magazine capacity and assault weapons? "
DeleteAnon, your willingness to resort to the "if it saves just one life" exposes your not just for "reasonable" or "common sense" gun laws. You want to eventually ban guns from private ownership using the logic of it just saving one life.
And lets keep in mind, the 13% of less than 1% is Everytown's numbers. They just have an issue with counting accurately.
I didn't think Anonymous said "just one life." I think he made it clear that it would be a lot more than one.
DeleteI agree with him about your bizarre justifications based on small percentages and your quibbling over the way the dead bodies are counted.
"You want to eventually ban guns from private ownership using the logic of it just saving one life."
ReplyDeleteJust another lie by you about my position. I have no clue why Mike thinks you are on of the saner gun loons, you have proven otherwise on most issues. Since you use lies as tactics you are a true gun loon, not to mention you have no regard for human life.
"Just another lie by you about my position."
ReplyDeleteThen clarify your position regarding your statement please.
"You don't think one life saved is enough to advocate for a ban smaller magazine capacity and assault weapons? "
You seem to make a claim that I wouldn't think saving one life is enough to support a total ban on a type of firearm and that me not doing that is a bad thing. That would suggest that you believe that supporting such a ban would be a good thing and that you support it. Am I wrong on this?
Is there a class of firearms that you wouldn't seek to ban because they are misused?
When you dismiss simple rules that could save lives and not infringe on your second amendment rights, you prove you could care less about life. I have never said total ban and never would. Another typical gun loon response and certtainly another lie about my position. Keep the lies coming.
Delete"When you dismiss simple rules that could save lives and not infringe on your second amendment rights, you prove you could care less about life."
DeleteAll you have to do is sell that concept to the voters and their elected representatives will make it happen. However, this class of firearm remains popular among citizens,
"The AR-15, which isn't a brand but rather a generic design, accounts for an estimated 60 percent of all civilian rifle sales in the United States and perhaps a quarter of all firearms sold, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, an industry group based in Newtown."
http://articles.courant.com/2013-03-09/business/hc-haar-ar-15-it-gun-20130308_1_ar-15-rifle-new-rifle-the-ar-15
Then of course, you need to add in the AK style semi-autos also.
That's right. There has been very few gun control folks who have ever mentioned a total ban on all civilian guns. But, that doesn't stop the gun-rights fanatics from claiming that's what our true aim is. It's dishonest.
DeleteThe point about a class of weapon is?
Delete"I have no clue why Mike thinks you are on of the saner gun loons, you have proven otherwise on most issues."
ReplyDeleteI don't think that Mike believes I'm "saner". I think its more that Mike is willing to debate on the issues and isn't averse to admitting when someone makes a valid point. Something I find, rare and refreshing.
I never used the word "saner." I think I've said you're more reasonable than most. But, as Anonymous points out, there are moments when I wonder about that.
DeleteI would find it rare and refreshing if you stopped lying about my positions just to make your false point. Your point isn't valid at all when you twist words and misrepresent what people say, but that is a typical gun loon response.
Delete