No, There Has Not Been a Mass Shooting Every Day This Year

I didn't use the FBI stats all the way through because I was vaguely familiar with the numbers and just wanted to give a "quick-and-dirty" answer to Lordasways. If I had looked at Table 8 instead of just Table 1 I would have used that stat.

Incidentally, the homicides committed was 16,000+ in 2013, and the ones by firearms were 11,000+ in your chart. It works out to 69%, which is higher than my source's 56%, but somewhere in the ballpark. ( I actually felt the 56% number was low anyway, but I didn't want to get into a big research thing). There were 21,000+ suicide deaths by firearm as well, but I did not count those because if you want to compare gun deaths to war, I think you mean when people shoot at each other, not shoot themselves. Not that suicide is not a significant consideration, but I think it belongs in a different category.

I think its obvious women dont give a rats arse about violence, they just dont want it done to them. More men are victims of rape and assault than women. The statistics for children are harder to come by but children murdered, assaulted, abused physically and sexually by both sexes would outnumber women victims of men. Are women trying to prevent violence or are they just overcompensating for a lack of size? Did anyone notice the emotionally immature marked me down?

I'm following ehBeth's lead.

Doesn't change the fact its off-topic.

What is particularly disturbing is how even when it is pointed out to them that certain information is simply bogus, people continue to employ it to support their positions. The best example of this is "Hands Up! Don't Shoot!"

Too many people believe that they are holders of deeper truths than mere facts can influence.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/14/17013596/parkland-florida-high-school-shooting

This doesn't sound good:

"It's catastrophic. There really are no words."

http://twitter.com/browardsheriff/status/963896467609014273

I've got some words. How about let's get some ******* gun control in force thirty years ago.

We've had gun control since 1968.

Since 1934 if you count NFA weapons.

What you do in 2018+ is what matters now Edgar.

Vox was duped by the source because of confirmation bias

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/no-there-havent-been-18-school-shooting-in-2018-that-number-is-flat-wrong/2018/02/15/65b6cf72-1264-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html?utm_term=.cf0089934368

The source counted this as the first "school shooting" of 2018



So even on a thread intended to debunk false information someone trotted out more fake news on the topic.

Too typical

You may have seen the link I posted to a 2015 WaPo article in which it's highly touted fact-checkers awarded a rare "Geppetto Checkmark" to Marco Rubio's assertion that the gun control promoted by the Dems would have failed to prevent prior mass shootings. In other words, the fact-checkers who admitted they thought this one would be easy to debunk (but didn't admit what we all know, that they very much wanted to debunk it) couldn't find a way to call it inaccurate.

Given that the Dem proposals are too little, regardless of whether or not they are too late, what's the alternative?

I wish progressives would get around to fessing up that what they really want is to outlaw private ownership of virtually all firearms. Clearly, their "incremental approach" isn't working, but how are they going to be able to call for their real goal until the first step is tried and people like Rubio are proven right?

Sticking with the incremental approach though would require laws that made the purchase of new firearms illegal along with a program including the voluntary surrender of existing guns. Of course, as long as the program was voluntary it would fail miserably and so the next step would have to be the seizure of all existing firearms.

There are an estimated 300 million + privately owned firearms in this country. What do you think the chances are of the government pulling off an orderly and peaceful round-up of this many guns?

So to prevent mass shootings the government would start a war with American gun-owners that would very probably result in more deaths than the total body count of all of the sick bastards like the one in FL combined?

Hard to imagine that's going to happen, particularly since despite all of the tears, tough talk and damning accusations, the party that has proposed so-called "common sense" gun control measures is clearly not willing to fight for them.

I didn't think Nancy Pelosi could be a bigger, lying, phony twit than she's already proven to be, but I was wrong.

Yesterday she had the absolute brass to melodramatically announce at a press conference:

"I would rather pass gun safety legislation than win the election"



Even you can't believe that.

Considering that the Democrat's proposal for further reduction of the 2nd Amendment rights of American citizens will not accomplish what they hope and claim it will, Republicans should resist it and not, yet again, surrender to a propaganda assault by the opposition and their allies in the liberal media.

The Democrats who lack the integrity and fortitude to risk their seats and the possibility of winning back Congress by pulling out the stops and really fighting for the law they insist will save the lives of American school children are resorting to propaganda like the fake news report that there have been 18 school shooting already in 2018, outrageous and disgusting accusations about Republicans having blood on their hands, and phony "spontaneous" demonstrations to bully the weak-kneed GOP into doing it for them.

So far I haven't seen any cracks in the armor, but the pressure has yet to reach its most fevered intensity. Ironically, it will be the liberal media (which is to say the mainstream media) which has been doing such a yeoman's job carrying their water for them on this one (If you get a chance, take a peek at the sanctimonious nonsense being spouted on CNN and MSNBC by that nitwit Don Lemon or the quisling Joe Scarborough), who will let them down and once again foil the plan. It won't be long before Lemon, Scarborough and all the other self-righteous phonies get bored and run out of steam. Already today's announcement of the Mueller indictments of Russian agents (with none being directed at their "unwitting" American "co-conspirators") has given them something else to cover, and it appears that more announcements will soon follow. If they do and if any can be seen as a blow to Trump, watch how fast Lemon, Scarborough, Reid, and Maddow will pivot away from slain school children to the story they've all be praying they will get to report.

Even without blockbuster news from the Mueller investigation, the news cycle can't get stuck on this story for more than another week. If 2nd Amendment proponents in the GOP were smart they would find a way to leak something into which the MSM can sink their teeth. They are and they will.

This is not a problem that has any chance of being solved through the exchange of strident insults and accusations on the Senate or House floors on in the media, and since that's the only way the Democrats are willing to tackle it, it's not going to be solved.

Quote Finn:


Your post is a month old. Hundreds of thousands expected in Washington DC on Saturday, and similar demonstrations in dozens of other cities.

[b]Students: 1 million expected at anti-gun-violence marches[/b]



By Jennifer Peltz | AP March 19
NEW YORK — Students from the Florida high school where 17 people were fatally shot last month expect more than 1 million participants in upcoming marches in Washington and elsewhere calling for gun regulations, students said Monday.

More than 800 March for Our Lives demonstrations are planned around the world Saturday, sparked by the Feb. 14 shooting in Parkland, Florida.

“It just shows that the youth are tired of being the generation where we’re locked in closets and waiting for police to come in case of a shooter,” Alex Wind, a junior at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, told The Associated Press.

“We’re sick and tired of having to live with this normalcy of turning on the news and watching a mass shooting,” he added.

Since the massacre, Stoneman Douglas students have been at the forefront of a push to tighten gun restrictions and protect schools.

They have led rallies and lobbied lawmakers in Washington and Florida’s capital, Tallahassee. Last Wednesday, tens of thousands of students around the U.S. walked out of their classrooms to demand action on gun violence and school safety. Stoneman Douglas students fanned out Monday to discuss the marches with media outlets in New York, including NBC’s “Today” show and “CBS This Morning.”

The National Rifle Association didn’t immediately respond to an inquiry Monday about the upcoming marches.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/apnewsbreak-some-wanted-florida-suspect-committed-in-2016/2018/03/18/cbf4838e-2b0e-11e8-8dc9-3b51e028b845_story.html?utm_term=.cf56213ced59

We're not going to give up our civil rights just because a bunch of kids whine at us.

The issue is whether you have a right to own a military style weapon that can shoot, unaltered, 2 or 3 bullets per second, not whether you have the right to own a hunting rifle.

And the answer is: Yes I do. Unless someone can come up with a good reason for banning pistol grips, any such ban on them is unconstitutional.

That said, it makes it trivially easy for the NRA to defeat the gun banners' entire agenda when they center their entire fight around an attempt to ban pistol grips, so I encourage the gun banners to continue undermining themselves.

It would be pretty hard to aim I think while pulling a trigger two or three times a second.

The full military version of the weapon shoots a lot faster than that. The basic design was invented by the Germans toward the end of WWII, the concept being to spray the air with bullets. The civilian version is slower, but the shooter still can get off 2 or 3 shots a second.

Do you have any Supreme Court decisions saying that a law banning them is unconstitutional? Take your time, I'm turning in for the night.

The full military version also doesn't require the trigger to be pulled over and over again for each shot.



I'd like to see them do it while still aiming usefully.



No. Currently the Supreme Court is not enforcing the Second Amendment. We'll have to wait for Ginsburg/Breyer/Kennedy to retire and be replaced by a good Trump appointee before we start getting rulings that uphold the Second Amendment. In the meantime the burden falls on the NRA to be the nation's primary guarantor of the Second Amendment.

What I do have are the longstanding judicial rules that laws are only allowed to restrict a right if that restriction can be justified with a good reason. And I have the fact that no one can produce a good reason for banning pistol grips.

Phooey! Ed McGivern could beat that - with a revolver.

On the assumption that a piss ant dictator like Saddam Hussein might be working on weapons of mass destruction we destroyed countries and left that region destabilized, for generations to come, a decision made from fear Americans might die, killing innocent people that will never be counted. But the actual dangers that kill thousands of Americans are a different matter. Our hands are tied by greed and something akin to religious fervor. Disgust is a mild reaction to the state of affairs.