ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
My point was that 71 is not the total number of people killed by firearms.71 people killed in mass shootings, out of a population of 320 plus million.
How many died by falling off of ladders ?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
My point was that 71 is not the total number of people killed by firearms.71 people killed in mass shootings, out of a population of 320 plus million.
How many died by falling off of ladders ?
My point was that 71 is not the total number of people killed by firearms.
Except most studies show that people suffering from mental health problems are actually less likely to commit violent crime or mass shootings:Let me repeat this just in case you or anyone else missed it...
U.S. population= 327 million
Guns owned by civilians=383 million.
Guns clearly out number people.
1983 to present there have been 114 mass shootings in the U.S.
114 mass shootings/383 million guns= 0.0000297% of guns used for mass shootings.
If 200 million civilians own guns(it may be higher/lower)...
114 mass shootings/200 million guns owners= 0.000057% of gun owners use guns for mass shootings.
As for mental illness and mass shootings, IMO there is a correlation. These 10 were randomly picked, researched and the results are...
Las Vegas Shooter 2017. 58 killed. Shooter Stephen Paddock suffered anxiety and depression.
Aurora, Colorado shooting 2012. 12 killed. Shooter James Holmes suffered depression, halucinations among other things.
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting 2012. 26 killed. Shooter Adam Lanza suffered anxiety, OCD, asperger's, and schizophrenia.
Living Church of God shooting 2005. 7 killed. Shooter Terry Ratzmann suffered from depression.
Red Lake, Minnesota 2005. 10 killed. Shooter Jeff Weise suffered depression, abuse, multiple suicide attemps.
Binghamton shootings 2009. 13 killed. The shooter Jiverly Antares Wong suffered depression.
Sandy Hook 2012. 26 killed. The shooter Adam Lanza suffered asperger's, depression, anxiety and OCD.
Washington Navy Yard 2013. 12 killed. The shooter Aaron Alexis suffered depression and hearing voices.
Charleston church 2015. 9 killed. The shooter Dylann Roof suffered depression and OCD.
Stoneman Douglas High School 2018. 17 killed. The shooter Nikolas Jacob Cruz suffered depression, autism, and ADHD
So many of these "SEE?! People DO need their gunz for self defence! See!?" type cherry picked anecdotes seem to have been escalated largely by the fact that someone had a gun. One in particular I remember (many thousands of shootings ago) was a case where some guy hammered on a young lady's door in the middle of the night. She opened the door, he barged in, so she shot him. All the gun fetish types wet themselves with glee over it as an example of "self defence". Never once did any of them ask "why did she open the door in the first place?" Similar stories happen over and over again.Wow, look at all this important stuff you missed:
"On the other hand, some scholars point to radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use. A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gunwielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed, both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings. Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry— may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration."It's also worth noting that one of the main sources in this article is Gary Kleck, whose research has been widely questioned, and has been denounced by the National Institute of Justice as being totally inconsistent with actual crime rates in America:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
Contradictions of Kleck
Meanwhile, more recent and wide-ranging surveys estimate that defensive gun use occurs in less that 1% of contact crimes:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743515001188
And further, broad gun ownership has a significant, positive correlation on the amount of robbery, violent crime and suicide:
More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows
So many of these "SEE?! People DO need their gunz for self defence! See!?" type cherry picked anecdotes seem to have been escalated largely by the fact that someone had a gun. One in particular I remember (many thousands of shootings ago) was a case where some guy hammered on a young lady's door in the middle of the night. She opened the door, he barged in, so she shot him. All the gun fetish types wet themselves with glee over it as an example of "self defence". Never once did any of them ask "why did she open the door in the first place?" Similar stories happen over and over again.
Now, I don't doubt that there ARE legitimate cases where someone breaks into a house with the express intent to do harm, and a gun was used to save a life. But...
A. How many of those people had a gun, but inadequate security generally? Would a decent security door and screens have stopped the would be harm doer from entry in the first place?
And
B. I sincerely suspect that the number of genuine, bonafide "it was him or me, and he broke in through my security door, explicitly to do me harm" cases are far fewer than the number of people who get killed accidentally or wrongfully by firearms. So yes, while I fully accept and agree that anyone who gets harmed by someone breaking in past a security system because they didn't have a gun is an absolute tragedy, simple "greatest good for greatest number" ethical arguments apply. If one life is legitimately and unambiguously saved at a rate less than the number of people wrongfully getting shot, the self defence argument loses its validity, IMHO.
Of course not.My point was that 71 is not the total number of people killed by firearms.
Once again, compared with 11,000 homicides in the same period.Blaming the home invasion victim for not living in a impenetrable fortress doesn't change the fact there are indeed hundreds of justifiable gun homicides done by private American citizens each year. ...
Exactly. So comparing that number to the number of justifiable homicides and using them to conclude a general trend in "benefit" and "harm" of gun ownership is a gross misrepresentation of reality.Of course not.
I am simply pointing out that the shootings that drive the anti gun hysteria are statistically insignificant.Exactly. So comparing that number to the number of justifiable homicides and using them to conclude a general trend in "benefit" and "harm" of gun ownership is a gross misrepresentation of reality.
Homicide simply means killed by another. Justifiably ?, illegally ? Accidental ?Once again, compared with 11,000 homicides in the same period.
Not exactly a great ratio.
It wasn't a comparison you made, it was Salvador who made it earlier.I am simply pointing out that the shootings that drive the anti gun hysteria are statistically insignificant.
Of course, for the families it is horrendous, yet it is the same for all those who die everyday on the roads, or at home.
In the case of the statistics provided earlier, it's homicides classed under "murder" for the year 2016, so unlawful homicides:Homicide simply means killed by another. Justifiably ?, illegally ? Accidental ?
You only think you "debunked" what I posted but you actually didn't. I correctly stated what the CPD chief of police stated about where most illegal guns used by Chicago gangs come from (Indiana), plus the fact that background checks have actually been used to catch some criminals is a matter of the public record. On top of that, what exactly is the problem with having universal background checks anyway, especially since 93% of Americans in a recent poll said they're in favor of them and this includes a majority of Republicans?So since I have debunked the majority of your above statements. How about giving a real answer to "universal background checks"
Background checks are already required to purchase any firearm from a dealer. So, the ¨üniversal" background check means federal involvement in another aspect of life.You only think you "debunked" what I posted but you actually didn't. I correctly stated what the CPD chief of police stated about where most illegal guns used by Chicago gangs come from (Indiana), plus the fact that background checks have actually been used to catch some criminals is a matter of the public record. On top of that, what exactly is the problem with having universal background checks anyway, especially since 93% of Americans in a recent poll said they're in favor of them and this includes a majority of Republicans?
So, your "victory lap" is only based on imagination.
Except most studies show that people suffering from mental health problems are actually less likely to commit violent crime or mass shootings:
Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American Firearms
Further, the American Psychological Society rejects the claim that we should blame mental health issues for mass shootings:
“Routinely blaming mass shootings on mental illness is unfounded and stigmatizing. Research has shown that only a very small percentage of violent acts are committed by people who are diagnosed with, or in treatment for, mental illness. The rates of mental illness are roughly the same around the world, yet other countries are not experiencing these traumatic events as often as we face them. One critical factor is access to, and the lethality of, the weapons that are being used in these crimes. Adding racism, intolerance and bigotry to the mix is a recipe for disaster.Statement of APA President in Response to Mass Shootings in Texas, Ohio
“If we want to address the gun violence that is tearing our country apart, we must keep our focus on finding evidence-based solutions. This includes restricting access to guns for people who are at risk for violence and working with psychologists and other experts to find solutions to the intolerance that is infecting our nation and the public dialogue.”
Looking exclusively at America and only using American statistics on this issue is always going to skew the figures. When you look at the whole world, there is only one significant difference between America and similar countries which don't have anywhere near the number of mass shootings or shootings in general - their approach to gun control.
Except most studies show that people suffering from mental health problems are actually less likely to commit violent crime or mass shootings:
Mental Illness, Mass Shootings, and the Politics of American Firearms
Further, the American Psychological Society rejects the claim that we should blame mental health issues for mass shootings:
“Routinely blaming mass shootings on mental illness is unfounded and stigmatizing. Research has shown that only a very small percentage of violent acts are committed by people who are diagnosed with, or in treatment for, mental illness. The rates of mental illness are roughly the same around the world, yet other countries are not experiencing these traumatic events as often as we face them. One critical factor is access to, and the lethality of, the weapons that are being used in these crimes. Adding racism, intolerance and bigotry to the mix is a recipe for disaster.Statement of APA President in Response to Mass Shootings in Texas, Ohio
“If we want to address the gun violence that is tearing our country apart, we must keep our focus on finding evidence-based solutions. This includes restricting access to guns for people who are at risk for violence and working with psychologists and other experts to find solutions to the intolerance that is infecting our nation and the public dialogue.”
Looking exclusively at America and only using American statistics on this issue is always going to skew the figures. When you look at the whole world, there is only one significant difference between America and similar countries which don't have anywhere near the number of mass shootings or shootings in general - their approach to gun control.
Question. What makes Indiana laws easier to purchase firearms than Illinois laws?You only think you "debunked" what I posted but you actually didn't. I correctly stated what the CPD chief of police stated about where most illegal guns used by Chicago gangs come from (Indiana), plus the fact that background checks have actually been used to catch some criminals is a matter of the public record. On top of that, what exactly is the problem with having universal background checks anyway, especially since 93% of Americans in a recent poll said they're in favor of them and this includes a majority of Republicans?
So, your "victory lap" is only based on imagination.
Maybe there's something in the drinking water.U.S. population= 327 million
Guns owned by civilians=383 million.
Guns clearly out number people.
1983 to present there have been 114 mass shootings in the U.S.
114 mass shootings/383 million guns= 0.0000297% of guns used for mass shootings.
If 200 million civilians own guns(it may be higher/lower)...
114 mass shootings/200 million guns owners= 0.000057% of gun owners use guns for mass shootings.
As for mental illness and mass shootings, IMO there is a correlation. These 10 were random picked, researched and the results are...
Las Vegas Shooter 2017. 58 killed. Shooter Stephen Paddock suffered anxiety and depression.
Aurora, Colorado shooting 2012. 12 killed. Shooter James Holmes suffered depression, halucinations among other things.
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting 2012. 26 killed. Shooter Adam Lanza suffered anxiety, OCD, asperger's, and schizophrenia.
Living Church of God shooting 2005. 7 killed. Shooter Terry Ratzmann suffered from depression.
Red Lake, Minnesota 2005. 10 killed. Shooter Jeff Weise suffered depression, abuse, multiple suicide attemps.
Binghamton shootings 2009. 13 killed. The shooter Jiverly Antares Wong suffered depression.
Sandy Hook 2012. 26 killed. The shooter Adam Lanza suffered asperger's, depression, anxiety and OCD.
Washington Navy Yard 2013. 12 killed. The shooter Aaron Alexis suffered depression and hearing voices.
Charleston church 2015. 9 killed. The shooter Dylann Roof suffered depression and OCD.
Stoneman Douglas High School 2018. 17 killed. The shooter Nikolas Jacob Cruz suffered depression, autism, and ADHD
While I agree that private sales do need more regulation, the fact is that people suffering from mental illness are statistically less likely to be murderers, including mass-murderers. They are actually more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators.And again in the latest shooting in Texas. The shooter was banned from purchasing a firearm because of "mental illness".
So he bought one in a private sale which IMO private sales need to be regulated more.
Firstly, "normal people"?Normal people don't commit mass shootings.
People with a history of violence are the largest perpetrators (I know it's nearing a tautology, but it's the best indicator), along with extreme political and social ideology.Who does those studies say does mass shootings?