52
   

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

 
 
sceletera
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2018 07:33 pm
@oralloy,
The court rulings stand on their own.
sceletera
 
  3  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2018 07:34 pm
@oralloy,
Scalia in the Heller ruling stated that military weapons and the like are not protected by the second amendment.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2018 07:35 pm
@sceletera,
sceletera wrote:
The court rulings stand on their own.
Irrelevant trivia always stands for something or other. It just isn't relevant to whatever is being discussed.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2018 07:40 pm
@sceletera,
sceletera wrote:
Scalia in the Heller ruling stated that military weapons and the like are not protected by the second amendment.
That is incorrect. He stated that a weapon may be restricted if there is a very good reason for restricting it.

There are certainly some military weapons that there are good reasons for restricting, but being a military weapon does not automatically mean that there is a good reason for restrictions.
Baldimo
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2018 02:07 pm
@Blickers,
Quote:
Guns & Ammo are probably not part of what you pretentiously call "the MSM", and they glorify assault style semiautomatic rifles all the time. You know, put them on the cover of the mag and and all that.

No, they are not part of the MSM and they also don't glorify murder. Talking about guns is not advocating murder, unless you are a twisted person, like many on the left are indeed twisted.

Quote:
That's true Baldimo, when a deranged fanatic shoots up a school, which seems to be happening quite a lot, the media will do its job and report the details, including the body count.

You still haven't proven "mass shootings with the AR-15 are accelerating"... which you seem to be trying to imply again.

Quote:
Most people find it repugnant and outrageous that our kids might get shot up in school, but pro-gun types like yourselves only see bad publicity for your precious toys, not dead schoolchildren.

Really? You think we are worried about "bad publicity" for the gun? I'm all for reporting the facts of a case when it happens, but 2 continue to talk about the deaths on the gun used and make sure you talk about the gun used, do you really think it's bad publicity for the gun, or a promotion to the next crazy who wants to grab headlines or seek some sort of misaligned revenge? You are talking out of both sides of your face.
Besides, the FBI and psychologists agree with me and not you. They say your's and the MSM take on reporting is what drives a majority of the mass shootings in the US. They see the "air time" the shooter gets, and they want their own, they want to be better and get a higher body count so they can be the major news headline.

From a MotherJones article:
Code:Evidence amassed by the FBI and other threat assessment experts shows that perpetrators and plotters look to past attacks both for inspiration and operational details, in hopes of causing even greater carnage. Would-be attackers frequently emulate the Columbine massacre; one high-level law enforcement agent told me that he’s encountered dozens of students around the country who say they admire the Columbine killers. “Some of these kids now weren’t even born when that happened,” he said. The 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech and other attacks that generated major publicity have also spawned many copycats, according to several law enforcement officials I spoke with.


Quote:
And now you are calling for the media to abdicate their job, without realizing how bad you look doing that.

Nice try. If the media were doing their job, they wouldn't be about the guns, the guns don't cause the mass shootings. They would address the real issues behind these shootings and what a majority of them have in common, single parent homes, anti-depression drugs and a feeling of isolation from those around them and some form of misguided seeking of "justice" for wrongs they have "perceived". Instead the media hype the gun and blame it for the shooting instead of the person who actually did the shooting and why.





sceletera
 
  2  
Reply Wed 11 Jul, 2018 07:17 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

sceletera wrote:
Scalia in the Heller ruling stated that military weapons and the like are not protected by the second amendment.
That is incorrect. He stated that a weapon may be restricted if there is a very good reason for restricting it.
Where do you think he stated that in the ruling. He stated a weapon can be banned if it is "dangerous and unusual"
Quote:

There are certainly some military weapons that there are good reasons for restricting, but being a military weapon does not automatically mean that there is a good reason for restrictions.


From Scalia:
Quote:
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned,
then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,


Clearly Scalia stated that weapons that are most useful in military service, M16 and similar, can be banned.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
Page 55
sceletera
 
  3  
Reply Wed 11 Jul, 2018 07:46 am
@Baldimo,
It doesn't take much work to figure out that the number of mass shootings involving AR-15 and similar weapons has increased.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0057.htm
From 1999 to 2005 in the 10 mass shootings listed 3 appear to have used an AR-15 or similar weapon. (There is some question as to the exact configuration of the Saiga and Ruger mini-14 but I included them.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
From 2012 to 2018 in 10 mass shootings that had at least 1o dead an AR-15 or similar weapon was used in at least 7 of them. (I didn't bother to check the exact weapon but relied on memory of news stories at the time stating the rifle in question was an "assault rifle". Feel free to dispute the number by providing info showing the weapons in question weren't an assault weapon that would have been banned under the Federal assault weapons ban.)

From the wiki page it is easy to see that the number of mass shootings where at least 10 were killed has increased dramatically in the last few years. It lists 27 mass shooting starting in 1949 where 10 or more were killed. 13 of those shootings occurred in the last 10 years. A pretty drastic increase compared to earlier decades.

Not only have AR-15 and similar weapons been used in more mass shootings but the the numbers killed have increased dramatically with the use of those weapons.

oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Jul, 2018 07:54 am
@sceletera,
sceletera wrote:
Where do you think he stated that in the ruling.
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"


sceletera wrote:
He stated a weapon can be banned if it is "dangerous and unusual"
Being extremely dangerous would count as a good reason to restrict access to a weapon.

sceletera wrote:
Clearly Scalia stated that weapons that are most useful in military service, M16 and similar, can be banned.
Yes, if someone can provide a good argument that there is a reason to ban them.

But being useful to the military is not a reason in itself. There has to actually be a good reason for banning it. Like if the weapon in question is extremely dangerous.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 11 Jul, 2018 07:59 am
@sceletera,
sceletera wrote:
Not only have AR-15 and similar weapons been used in more mass shootings but the the numbers killed have increased dramatically with the use of those weapons.
An increase in lethality by going from handguns to rifles is likely.

There won't be any difference in lethality between an assault rifle and a rifle without assault features.
Baldimo
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 11 Jul, 2018 11:18 am
@sceletera,
Quote:
It doesn't take much work to figure out that the number of mass shootings involving AR-15 and similar weapons has increased.

It wasn't my work to do, blickers made the claim and failed to provide the proof, instead choosing to bicker with me about 4 shootings, even when I gave her the benefit of the doubt.

Are we looking at mass shootings using an AR type rifle, or are we only looking at shootings with 10 or more dead? I find it interesting that you limit it to 10 or more dead instead of using the more general term of between 4 and 6 people shot, a mass shooting has never depended on the # of people killed. You seem to be conflating mass killings with mass shootings, when you start manipulating the criteria, it's easy to get the results you want.

Believe it or not, MotherJones has actually done some decent background work on this subject and they do admit that both terms "assault weapon and high capacity magazine" or both political term. For their study they used Diane Finestiene's 2013 assault weapons ban which declares high capacity magazines to be 10 or more and useless terms like "military features":
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/assault-weapons-high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings-feinstein/
They say this info includes more current data through 2018, even based on their count, out of data available in the article from 1982 to 2012, there were only 20 mass shootings using an "assault weapon", out of 62 mass shootings. They expanded their mass shooting count to 39 from 2013-2018, the same years blickers used as her example. As I pointed out according to the definition for a mass shooting, there were only 7 mass shootings with an "assault weapon" for those years, the other shootings blickers tried to slip in did not meet the definition of a mass shooting.

Quote:
Not only have AR-15 and similar weapons been used in more mass shootings but the the numbers killed have increased dramatically with the use of those weapons.

No, the most common weapon used in mass shootings is handguns, "assault weapons" have been used in some of the deadliest shootings in the US, but they have also been used in self-defense. We can't weigh our gun laws on only the negative impact but also the positive impact as well. Guns are used 500,000 to 2.5 million times per year for self-defense. I'll point it out again, but there is a reason why the anti-gun left ignores the Obama mandated 2013 CDC study on gun violence, the facts about guns and their use don't fit the anti-gun rhetoric.
sceletera
 
  3  
Reply Thu 12 Jul, 2018 07:13 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

sceletera wrote:
Where do you think he stated that in the ruling.
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"


sceletera wrote:
He stated a weapon can be banned if it is "dangerous and unusual"
Being extremely dangerous would count as a good reason to restrict access to a weapon.

sceletera wrote:
Clearly Scalia stated that weapons that are most useful in military service, M16 and similar, can be banned.
Yes, if someone can provide a good argument that there is a reason to ban them.


Scalia makes no requirement that it be extremely dangerous nor does he require a good argument. He uses the term dangerous and says that a weapons that is dangerous and unusual can be banned. A weapon that is often used to kill people would fit the definition of dangerous. But scalia goes even further and states that M-16 and the like can be banned without violating the 2nd amendment

Quote:

But being useful to the military is not a reason in itself. There has to actually be a good reason for banning it. Like if the weapon in question is extremely dangerous.
Don't put words in Scailia's mouth. He only requires it be dangerous. As was pointed out in the 4th circuit ruling, assault weapons were designed to kill and maim large numbers of people. That simple fact makes them dangerous. The numbers killed in mass shootings by those weapons simply reinforces the fact that they are more dangerous than other types of weapons.
sceletera
 
  4  
Reply Thu 12 Jul, 2018 07:24 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

sceletera wrote:
Not only have AR-15 and similar weapons been used in more mass shootings but the the numbers killed have increased dramatically with the use of those weapons.
An increase in lethality by going from handguns to rifles is likely.

There won't be any difference in lethality between an assault rifle and a rifle without assault features.

Of course the weapons must be exactly the same. Rolling Eyes That must be why Charles Whitman was able to only kill 16 and wound 31 in 90 minutes while Charles Paddock was able to kill 58 and wound 851 in 10 minutes. A retired accountant must be that much better with weapons than a former marine.

Lethality is the capacity to cause death or harm. Which weapon caused more lethality in those 2 instances? Or will you pretend to not know the meaning of the word "lethality" which you decided to use?
sceletera
 
  4  
Reply Thu 12 Jul, 2018 07:41 am
@Baldimo,
Quote:
I find it interesting that you limit it to 10 or more dead instead of using the more general term of between 4 and 6 people shot, a mass shooting has never depended on the # of people killed.


I didn't limit it to 10 or more dead. I used the FBI standard definition for 10 shootings from 1999-2005 which is what you required from Blickers. There were only 3 involving a possible assault type of long gun. There were 7 using that type of weapon in a similar time period (more than 10 dead meets the FBI standard and is actually more restrictive.) in the last few years.
7 is more than 3. Arguing that the 7 shootings aren't a valid comparison because more people died is idiotic on your part. Do you really want to make that argument?

3 instances in 6 years
7 instances in 6 years.
Which is more?
Is 7 statistically greater than 3?

Now if I were to take the time to use the 4-6 wounded or killed standard for the last 6 years and discover that there were more than 10 in that 6 years compared to 3 or less for any previous 6 year period, what would your argument be?

Quote:
Are we looking at mass shootings using an AR type rifle, or are we only looking at shootings with 10 or more dead? I find it interesting that you limit it to 10 or more dead instead of using the more general term of between 4 and 6 people shot, a mass shooting has never depended on the # of people killed. You seem to be conflating mass killings with mass shootings, when you start manipulating the criteria, it's easy to get the results you want.
So your argument is that a shooting where 10 or more people are killed is not a mass shooting? 7 over 6 years is still more than 3 over 6 years. In fact by using only those shootings that resulted in 10 or more in the last 10 years doesn't help give the results I want. It is exactly the opposite. I am reducing the number in the last 6 years by making the criteria higher. Are you really that ignorant or are you so blinded by your position you can't see facts?
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 12 Jul, 2018 09:24 am
@sceletera,
sceletera wrote:
Scalia makes no requirement that it be extremely dangerous nor does he require a good argument.
Scalia made no requirements at all. All he did was refer to the fact that laws are allowed to restrict a right if (and only if) there is a very good reason to justify that restriction.

sceletera wrote:
He uses the term dangerous and says that a weapons that is dangerous and unusual can be banned. A weapon that is often used to kill people would fit the definition of dangerous.
Actually no. If a weapon is no more deadly than an ordinary rifle, it does not qualify as dangerous.

sceletera wrote:
Don't put words in Scailia's mouth. He only requires it be dangerous.
He didn't make any requirements at all.

sceletera wrote:
As was pointed out in the 4th circuit ruling,
More irrelevant trivia? Really?
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 12 Jul, 2018 09:25 am
@sceletera,
sceletera wrote:
Of course the weapons must be exactly the same. Rolling Eyes
A folding stock and a flash suppressor do not make a weapon any more deadly.

sceletera wrote:
That must be why Charles Whitman was able to only kill 16 and wound 31 in 90 minutes while Charles Paddock was able to kill 58 and wound 851 in 10 minutes. A retired accountant must be that much better with weapons than a former marine.
Paddock used a bump stock and fired into a very large and densely-packed crowd of people.

sceletera wrote:
Lethality is the capacity to cause death or harm. Which weapon caused more lethality in those 2 instances? Or will you pretend to not know the meaning of the word "lethality" which you decided to use?
The weapon that used a bump stock was more deadly.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jul, 2018 01:14 pm
@sceletera,
Quote:
I didn't limit it to 10 or more dead. I used the FBI standard definition for 10 shootings from 1999-2005 which is what you required from Blickers.

Yes you did. This is why I quote people's words:
"From 2012 to 2018 in 10 mass shootings that had at least 1o dead an AR-15 or similar weapon was used in at least 7 of them. "
Not to mention the FBI stat uses "4 or more", not 1o. What I required from Blickers was to show the increase using the same criteria for the previous 6 years, which she failed to do.

Quote:
Now if I were to take the time to use the 4-6 wounded or killed standard for the last 6 years and discover that there were more than 10 in that 6 years compared to 3 or less for any previous 6 year period, what would your argument be?

Why didn't you do that before, instead of changing the number to 10 dead? Lets also not forget the full actual definition of a mass shooting:
"A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of firearms-related violence.[1] The United States' Congressional Research Service acknowledges that there is not a broadly accepted definition, and defines a "public mass shooting"[2] as one in which four or more people selected indiscriminately, not including the perpetrator, are killed, echoing the FBI definition[3][4]"

Quote:
So your argument is that a shooting where 10 or more people are killed is not a mass shooting?

Stop trying to twist it, no one but you has used that definition for a mass shooting.

Quote:
7 over 6 years is still more than 3 over 6 years.

When I went through your first link, I counted several shootings with "assault weapons", but the number of people killed was 8 or 9, so those didn't get counted as mass shootings because of your choice to use the 10 dead stat.

Quote:
In fact by using only those shootings that resulted in 10 or more in the last 10 years doesn't help give the results I want.

Yes it did, you were able to ignore at least 3 or 4 shootings because they didn't match your BS criteria of 10 or more dead, that makes the earlier shootings seem like there were less shootings while the later dates make it look like there has been a significant increase.

Quote:
It is exactly the opposite. I am reducing the number in the last 6 years by making the criteria higher. Are you really that ignorant or are you so blinded by your position you can't see facts?

The ignorance is on your part, thinking you can play with the numbers to reach your conclusion.
If we want an honest debate on this, we would look at the total number of shootings instead of just the shootings with "assault weapons".

I provided plenty of links to some good info, I can't believe I'm saying this, by MotherJones, that you seemed to have ignored.

Lets also not forget how the left ignores the 2013 CDC study on gun violence.

sceletera
 
  3  
Reply Thu 12 Jul, 2018 06:13 pm
@Baldimo,
I guess I need to point out all the errors you have made.

Baldimo wrote:

Quote:
It doesn't take much work to figure out that the number of mass shootings involving AR-15 and similar weapons has increased.

It wasn't my work to do, blickers made the claim and failed to provide the proof, instead choosing to bicker with me about 4 shootings, even when I gave her the benefit of the doubt.
But even when the work was done, rather than accept it you are making excuses and trying to deflect from what the statistics actually say. Your response below is riddled with math and factual errors. I will include my response with red.

Quote:

Are we looking at mass shootings using an AR type rifle, or are we only looking at shootings with 10 or more dead?

I don't even know what you are attempting here. It appears to be a false dichotomy. Mass shootings of 4 or more dead or injured is the standard you wanted to use. Mass shootings of 10 or more dead would be a subset of all shootings with 4 or victims. If the number of items in a subset for given years is more than the full set for other years then by the rules of math the numbers in the full set must be equal to or greater than the subset. I find it interesting that you limit it to 10 or more dead instead of using the more general term of between 4 and 6 people shot, a mass shooting has never depended on the # of people killed. 10 or more dead is a subset of 4 or more victims. This is simple math. You seem to be conflating mass killings with mass shootings, when you start manipulating the criteria, it's easy to get the results you want.

A mass killing where 10 or more people died as the result of being shot with a gun would be a mass shooting under any definition I can think of. Using a subset is hardly conflating anything.

Believe it or not, MotherJones has actually done some decent background work on this subject and they do admit that both terms "assault weapon and high capacity magazine" or both political term. For their study they used Diane Finestiene's 2013 assault weapons ban which declares high capacity magazines to be 10 or more and useless terms like "military features":
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/assault-weapons-high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings-feinstein/
They say this info includes more current data through 2018, even based on their count, out of data available in the article from 1982 to 2012, there were only 20 mass shootings using an "assault weapon", out of 62 mass shootings. They expanded their mass shooting count to 39 from 2013-2018, the same years blickers used as her example.

Here you are doing what you just accused me of. I doubt you even looked at the data because you are clearly misrepresenting it. However lets start by using your fake numbers which again prove that there has been an increase in the number of mass shootings using a AR-15 style weapon.

You claim there were 20 shootings with assault weapons according to Mother Jones over 30 years. That comes out to an average of 20/30 or .67 shootings per year with an assault weapon. From the wiki list of shootings with over 10 dead there were 6 attacks that used an AR-15 or similar weapon from 2013-2018(June). That comes out to 6 in 5.5 years. 6/5.5 = 1.09 per year. That works out to about a 62% increase in the number of shootings per year. That is enough to be statistically significant but it could be just an anomaly. But there are problems with 20 shooting figure you used.

In reality, when you look at the Mother Jones Data, there were 20 assault weapons used in 14 attacks. Some attackers carried multiple weapons. If we wanted to use just weapons and not attacks it would be skewed heavily by the recent Vegas shooting where there were at 14 Ar-15 and 10 AR-10 type weapons recovered. But let's do the math with the 14 shootings over 30 years.

14/30 = .47 shootings per year using an assault weapon
vs the 1.09 per year in the last 5.5 years using an assault style long rifle.
Now we see the number of mass shootings has more than doubled.

But we have even more problem making that comparison. It seems you have tried to skew the numbers in your favor by comparing ALL assault weapons banned under the legislation proposed by Feinstein when using the shootings from 1982-2012. Of the 14 mass shootings from 1982-2012 that would have used banned weapons some of them didn't use an AR-15 type of long gun.

Columbine - used Tec -DC pistols that would have been banned. Long gun would not be banned.
San Ysidro McDonald's - used an UZI carbine - (carbine means it probably classifed as a long gun so we will include it.)
The Capitol Hill After Party shooting - used a shotgun and handgun. (Not sure why this is listed as assault weapons. The shotgun does come with bayonet attachment in some configurations.)

Now we are down to 12 shootings with a long gun that would be considered an assault weapon.

12/30 = .4 average per year over 30 years
vs the 1.09 average per year for the last 5.5 years.

I am seeing a trend here. The number of mass shootings with AR-15 and similar weapons has more than doubled. Certainly not an insignificant increase.

Let's look at it another way using Mother Jones mass shootings data, by decade with assault rifles.

1982-1991 - 2 (3 total - exclude San Ysidro)
1992-2001 - 3 (4 total - exclude Columbine)
2002-2011 - 4
2011-2018 - 9

The numbers aren't lying at this point. If we were to graph them by number per year we would see an upward trend line. Mass shootings using an assault rifle have increased. No amount of obfuscation can hide that simple fact.

As I pointed out according to the definition for a mass shooting, there were only 7 mass shootings with an "assault weapon" for those years, the other shootings blickers tried to slip in did not meet the definition of a mass shooting. Assault weapon? Are you attempting to manipulate the criteria in order to get the results you want? It certainly seems that way. We are talking about a subset of assault weapons that is long guns that fit the description of an assault rifle. Your attempt to compare a larger set (assault weapons) to the subset (assault rifles) would get you an F in any logic course. Even if we let you do that, we still see a 62% increase in the number of mass shootings using assault weapons in the last 5 years.

Quote:
Not only have AR-15 and similar weapons been used in more mass shootings but the the numbers killed have increased dramatically with the use of those weapons.

No, the most common weapon used in mass shootings is handguns, That doesn't make my statement false. It is only an attempt to deflect from the truth of my statement. "assault weapons" have been used in some of the deadliest shootings in the US, but they have also been used in self-defense. Simply another deflection. But in this case one you can't show any evidence of. Please cite your cases of assault rifles being used in self defense. I guarantee more people will have been killed and injured in Vegas than you can find examples of an assault weapon being used in self defense. Handguns are the most common weapon used in self defense and handguns are not assault rifles as you have already pointed out.
We can't weigh our gun laws on only the negative impact but also the positive impact as well. Guns are used 500,000 to 2.5 million times per year for self-defense. You really need to check your statistics before you post them. It could be as few as 60,000 according to the CDC 2013 report. I'll point it out again, but there is a reason why the anti-gun left ignores the Obama mandated 2013 CDC study on gun violence, the facts about guns and their use don't fit the anti-gun rhetoric.

Read before you claim something.
https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#45
Pages 15-16 and 45 are probably the most relevant.
The CDC didn't do a study, they are merely referring to numbers from other studies.
sceletera
 
  3  
Reply Thu 12 Jul, 2018 07:27 pm
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:

Quote:
I didn't limit it to 10 or more dead. I used the FBI standard definition for 10 shootings from 1999-2005 which is what you required from Blickers.

Yes you did. This is why I quote people's words:

No, I didn't. This is from the first link I used which cites the mass shootings from 1999 to 2013.
Quote:

We have identified at least 49 mass shootings in the United States since the Columbine shooting. These are incidents where two or more people were killed, not counting the perpetrator.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0057.htm

Quote:
"From 2012 to 2018 in 10 mass shootings that had at least 1o dead an AR-15 or similar weapon was used in at least 7 of them. "

I did use the 10 dead number for 2012 to 2018 but not for 1999 to 2005.
I got my 1999 to 2005 numbers from here:
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0057.htm

Of the 11 shootings on that list from 1999-2005, 9 of them had fewer than 10 fatalities. I stated that it were 10 because I threw out the one where the pistol was unidentified. Of the 11 shootings on that list only 3 used a rifle that could be classified as an assault weapon. Clearly a pistol is not an assault rifle.




Quote:
Not to mention the FBI stat uses "4 or more", not 1o. What I required from Blickers was to show the increase using the same criteria for the previous 6 years, which she failed to do.
If as shooting has 10 or more fatalities would you agree that it has more than 4? If there were 7 shootings that had 10 or more would you agree that there were 7 that 4 or more? Certainly you realize that 10 is more than 4. What you seem to be confused about is that 1999-2005 is not the same thing as 2012-2018.
I used 4 or more as the standard for 1999-2005, (3 shootings in both Mother Jones and my link used assault rifles.) and showed that there were more assault rifle uses that killed 10 or more from 2012-2018. (7 and 7 is more than 3.) 7 shootings by assault rifles that killed 10 or more means there MUST be at the minimum 7 shootings with assault rifles that killed 4 or more. Surely you can understand this. It is pretty simple math.

Let me repeat this again because you don't seem to understand it. Maybe if I repeat it 3 or more times it will start to sink in.

From 1999-2006 from 2 sources, 3 mass shootings that killed or injured 4 or more used assault rifles. That is three. (3) https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0057.htm
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MHjy3irhi41L-vrk72GOZjjxnVV4gSfQzPfGZm3DY0s/edit#gid=0

From 2012-2018 from 1 source, there were 7 mass shootings that killed 10 or more people where an assault rifle was used That is seven. (7)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
Because there were 7 that killed 10 there must be at least 7 that killed 4 or more.

Now do you get it?


Quote:
Quote:
Now if I were to take the time to use the 4-6 wounded or killed standard for the last 6 years and discover that there were more than 10 in that 6 years compared to 3 or less for any previous 6 year period, what would your argument be?

Why didn't you do that before, instead of changing the number to 10 dead? Lets also not forget the full actual definition of a mass shooting:
"A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of firearms-related violence.[1] The United States' Congressional Research Service acknowledges that there is not a broadly accepted definition, and defines a "public mass shooting"[2] as one in which four or more people selected indiscriminately, not including the perpetrator, are killed, echoing the FBI definition[3][4]"
I didn't do that because I thought anyone with a jr high education would understand that a shooting in which 10 were killed would meet the definition of a shooting in which 4 or more were killed. Should I not assume that in the future? This is liking talking to a 3rd grader. I take that back. My granddaughter knows this.

Quote:
Quote:
So your argument is that a shooting where 10 or more people are killed is not a mass shooting?

Stop trying to twist it, no one but you has used that definition for a mass shooting.
I didn't use that definition. I only used a subset of the set of mass shootings that met the definition.

Quote:
Quote:
7 over 6 years is still more than 3 over 6 years.

When I went through your first link, I counted several shootings with "assault weapons", but the number of people killed was 8 or 9, so those didn't get counted as mass shootings because of your choice to use the 10 dead stat.
Really? From 1999 to 2005 you found more than 3 with assault weapons? Please list them. Do you understand that a shooting that happened in 2006 did not occur between 1999 and 2005? Do you need that explained because clearly you claim that you found more than 3 between 1999 and 2005 that used an assault rifle is factually false.

Quote:
Quote:
In fact by using only those shootings that resulted in 10 or more in the last 10 years doesn't help give the results I want.

Yes it did, you were able to ignore at least 3 or 4 shootings because they didn't match your BS criteria of 10 or more dead, that makes the earlier shootings seem like there were less shootings while the later dates make it look like there has been a significant increase.
Feel free to point out those 3 to 4 from 1999 to 2005. I await your reply.

Quote:
Quote:
It is exactly the opposite. I am reducing the number in the last 6 years by making the criteria higher. Are you really that ignorant or are you so blinded by your position you can't see facts?

The ignorance is on your part, thinking you can play with the numbers to reach your conclusion.
Do you understand even fractions? addition? subtraction? Shootings that kill 10 or more also kill 4 or more. I only used the 10 or more criteria for 2012-2018 which would HURT my argument since I made the standard higher for what I wanted to show.

Quote:

If we want an honest debate on this, we would look at the total number of shootings instead of just the shootings with "assault weapons".
When the question is whether the number of mass shootings involving assault rifles has increase or not why would we need to look at something completely unrelated. Should we also look at how much sugar is used to make chocolate cake? It makes as much sense.

Quote:
I provided plenty of links to some good info, I can't believe I'm saying this, by MotherJones, that you seemed to have ignored.
The MotherJones article was hardly ignored by me. As I pointed out in my previous post, it quite clearly supports the fact that the number of mass shootings with assault rifles is on the rise. I pointed out how it is you that ignored what was in the MotherJones article. You claimed "from 1982 to 2012, there were only 20 mass shootings using an "assault weapon", "
The MotherJones article states this: "20 assault weapons, across 14 mass-shooting cases"
In a bullet point no less making it almost impossible to miss but somehow you missed it.

Quote:

Lets also not forget how the left ignores the 2013 CDC study on gun violence.


Which CDC study are you referring to? There is no 2013 CDC study on gun violence. I assume you are referring to the National Research Council report from 2013 that was funded in part by the CDC. I haven't ignored it at all. You seem to be completely unfamiliar with it because you claim it was by the CDC and that it was a study. 2 factual errors before we even get to the contents of it. You might want to read it rather than relying on "news" sites that misrepresent it completely.
The name of the paper is :
PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH TO REDUCE THE THREAT OF
FIREARM-RELATED
VIOLENCE

It looks at existing studies and points out the lack of credible research on the topic. The numbers you pulled out earlier are laughable since they don't fully represent either of the 2 studies the paper talks about only using the high numbers from one study and ignoring the study that give a much smaller number.

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1
0 Replies
 
sceletera
 
  3  
Reply Thu 12 Jul, 2018 07:33 pm
@oralloy,
Scalia in Heller :
Quote:
We also recognize another important limitation on the
right to keep and carry arms. We think
that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual
weapons.”

..weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, ..
Glennn
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 12 Jul, 2018 07:48 pm
@sceletera,
Quote:
..weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned

So how is an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle any more like a select-fire M-16 rifle than any other semiautomatic rifle?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/19/2018 at 12:00:18