NRA offensive exposes deep U.S. divisions on guns

[Jiro]

That's right so wait for it to come out in 2013 hopefully if FBI makes a chart for mass murders only.


Bullshit! You have the answer but won't say it. It's just a hypothetical question since the statement includes "if". Say it! Do you agree or disagree?

OK, I need a break from this. I am gonna watch a movie on TV and drink beer now.

my answer to your hypothetical question = unable to answer due to insufficient data

 

[TXgolfer]

The chart is not according to mass murders only. It's generally any murder like gang shootings, robbery, family murder, cop killing, etc which mostly involved handguns. Sorry, wrong chart so please show me a chart according to mass murders in 2010-2012 ONLY .

Can't you answer my question "Right?"?

Why is a gang shooting less important than a mass shooting.

What the chart shows is that the odds of being murdered by a rifle.....any rifle in any situation....are slightly less than 1,000,000/1. Seems pretty paranoid to worry about something that rarely occurs.

 

[Grummer]

my answer to your hypothetical question = unable to answer due to insufficient data

jiro, to be fair, you cant refuse to answer to a hypothetical question on the basis of the lack of data, FORGET data for this moment, answer it with an estimate you could possibly surmise from purely in thoughts forms, not reading, memorising, or indicating, none of that...

surely you know what hypothetical means.

handguns are the highest used firearms in murder cases , why? concealment, it is often the spouse shooting in their own homes...which accounts for most of it. its interesting to see shotguns and rifles are used LESS in murders cases than 'unknown guns'. Im not sure whats the exact details/rules for when they collate these datas into the graphical form of displaying figures, but it seems to be that Unknowns could refer to sawn -offs , assault rifles, semi-autos, autos, snub nose handguns, miniatures, or even a full size deerhunting 30 rifles

what im saying is...how these graphs displays datas isnt always going to be translated uniformly for all those who use these information...and then again...
the unknown catergory could be 'raising a alarm' just because mass shootings is getting to be a fashionable way of getting famous as killers...

not sure what to say here but... just because just maybe only 5 % of that particular 'unknown firearms' bar is actually collated from use of these assault rifles ..and much less so , of how that particular assault rifles are USED in these mass-killing attacks...

its like im saying its blown out of proportion because of the the graphs groups these kinds of arms...and...same time, it doesnt actuall reflect HOW OFTEN are mass killings actually occuring...
-which is probably what Crazypaul is trying to put a up challenge to really look at the way these figure 'represents' recorded killing by guns crimes.
(and "RECORDED", is also subjective)


I hope, ive cleared something...im not obsessing on this thread, but at same time, its really interesting that, 'discussions' can go bad to worse because in my opinion, 'offical informations' can't be trusted...

now...
lets say (because we are all deaf, and have various experiences on this and often we all agree the curious hearies or the nosey, or the powerful edcuator can write and interpret the matters of life, education affecting Deaf people to be quite different from reality!!...its that the sort of distortion , that we all are familar with, but we need to be really careful not to get sucked in but what beaucrats might want us to believe...because as we know it, from being deaf they'd much prefer to say(and brag) how wonderful they made us 'hearing-like' asn we know its full of bullshit for their own gains, their own interest of control...
sound familar? why control, how far is control is acceptable, or nor enough..

sorry we all ready know this from having discussed this many times over in this thread...

before i sign off, id say this short,

the tables showing the bars of how many guns used in murders 'are true' but how its data is organised and shown is quite something else.
the exact same thing in Deaf politics, hearies will say and show figures of this, and Deaf from the other side will argue differently...

that's all

 

[diehardbiker]

You guys can argue all you want, banning assault rifle is not going to happen, it is due to landmark supreme court ruling that government can not infringe the right to bear arms. What does "Infringe" means? It means take control, and it is part of 2nd amendment and because of landmark supreme court decision in 2008 and 2010, it can not be repeal. So in other word, 2nd Amendment prohibited government from taking over control. The only exemption that government has when it comes to control firearms applies only those with felony conviction records.

And I am sure with high powered attorney that NRA has, they will make sure that the rights owning firearms will be maintained. So best solution, like Jiro proposed is felony registry just like sex offenders that have to register. Its fair to punish those with felony than to punish innocent law-abiding citizens. They also could create new law that if one gets caught selling firearms without proper documenting or falsified document (like Greece, NY neighbor had done) which result in homicide will be held fully responsible and considered as murder as well. It makes one equilvent to murder for hire. It does makes sense to me that if one knowing sold firearms to felony is considering enabler for murders (25 years to life is fair).

 

[Jiro]

jiro, to be fair, you cant refuse to answer to a hypothetical question on the basis of the lack of data, FORGET data for this moment, answer it with an estimate you could possibly surmise from purely in thoughts forms, not reading, memorising, or indicating, none of that...

surely you know what hypothetical means.

yes but I can't think like him. I don't know what's his proficiency is like or mindset or whatsoever. I don't have a rifle therefore I am not proficient with it. I am more proficient with my shotgun + handgun so I probably can kill more with my weapons than rifle - hypothetically.

but bottom line - the question's totally irrelevant. it serves no purpose and it's a distraction from facts and truth.

it's just as bad as "hypothetically... if a deafie has CI and learn how to speak + sign... he would get a better pay job than if he can't speak/hear, right?" totally irrelevant and a red herring.

 

[Foxrac]

You guys can argue all you want, banning assault rifle is not going to happen, it is due to landmark supreme court ruling that government can not infringe the right to bear arms. What does "Infringe" means? It means take control, and it is part of 2nd amendment and because of landmark supreme court decision in 2008 and 2010, it can not be repeal. So in other word, 2nd Amendment prohibited government from taking over control. The only exemption that government has when it comes to control firearms applies only those with felony conviction records.

And I am sure with high powered attorney that NRA has, they will make sure that the rights owning firearms will be maintained. So best solution, like Jiro proposed is felony registry just like sex offenders that have to register. Its fair to punish those with felony than to punish innocent law-abiding citizens. They also could create new law that if one gets caught selling firearms without proper documenting or falsified document (like Greece, NY neighbor had done) which result in homicide will be held fully responsible and considered as murder as well. It makes one equilvent to murder for hire. It does makes sense to me that if one knowing sold firearms to felony is considering enabler for murders (25 years to life is fair).

The US Supreme Court ruling only applies to Chicago and DC that complete ban on guns, that left you as not have self defense, unless you are grandfathered. They didn't strike the CA assault weapon ban down and the assault weapon is regulated under federal, that's not 1994, just long time ago. It is legal to regulate the firearm, such as restrict the military weapons to people with military license, of course, get one like those is very hard.

NRA didn't support background check, strict regulation or any more restriction to people with felony records because they represent the gun manufacturers, not interested in you.

 

[caz12]

So, you expect Americans to stick with muskets and pikes while the enemy uses the latest and greatest weaponry? That's not logical.

who is your enemy then.apart from a thread of humanity(use word loosely)who hate anything or body in this world not only america..I afraid having all the state of the art weaponry will not stop them they killed far more not using guns. Repeal your gun laws will save a lot of ordinary americans lives

 

[Grummer]

You guys can argue all you want, banning assault rifle is not going to happen, it is due to landmark supreme court ruling that government can not infringe the right to bear arms. What does "Infringe" means? It means take control, and it is part of 2nd amendment and because of landmark supreme court decision in 2008 and 2010, it can not be repeal. So in other word, 2nd Amendment prohibited government from taking over control. The only exemption that government has when it comes to control firearms applies only those with felony conviction records.

And I am sure with high powered attorney that NRA has, they will make sure that the rights owning firearms will be maintained. So best solution, like Jiro proposed is felony registry just like sex offenders that have to register. Its fair to punish those with felony than to punish innocent law-abiding citizens. They also could create new law that if one gets caught selling firearms without proper documenting or falsified document (like Greece, NY neighbor had done) which result in homicide will be held fully responsible and considered as murder as well. It makes one equilvent to murder for hire. It does makes sense to me that if one knowing sold firearms to felony is considering enabler for murders (25 years to life is fair).

I like that, and ive learnt something here, what you described is, the breakdown of matters of what governement can and can not do, you pointed out very clear about the 2nd Admendment (im not from usa but ive learned something here, interesting! (i like my beer -18th Admendment its to do with alcohol prohibition lol, and darn its the best NZ- made American Pale Ale type), now back to the topic...
controlling the supply is rather difficult, but you described clearly, that you Can at least control the 'black market' can be increased, but only to an extent...at that, how big or small an impact is another question, it is entirely debatable, even questionable.
For instance, this 'threatened to punish those willing to sell to feloney will be met with severe consequences' would pose two problems,

Firstly, it WONT change the way how the underworld operates, they will get smarter, and more dangerous, (consequences hardened criminals will be more dangerous as well, like more willing to kill those might blab or nark, about sales of firearms), other problem, it WONT change the way how people are coping or not coping in the failing society of USA...other means needs to be looked at as well...my own view - on additional this matter, is to be begin to look at how culture and media have damaged people's trust in 'society', but that's another floodgate of decisions, untried, 'irrelevant programmes' because the marketised society 'dont like it'...its a really a very difficult one, to even begin think how might we begin, ban gun violence in movies?? ridiculous! or ridiculous? this sort of thing, but then again entertainment and censorship (and sales of entertainment)will not consider it, economy relies on film's success (afaik about California).

However, on balance, those in the underworld are not insane (some are, some are 'insane' for a reputation -maybe movies taught me this bullshit I don't know Ive never got right into the underword this far, and I don't want to), they are unllikely willing to sell to those seemingly ordinary people assault weapons, they would get wary of it and hopefully refuse to sell to such people. But that's only a theory, I'd guess it would work because with this "new law" as diehardbiker commented of, would also make it harder to make contact into the underworld's gun market...there's also need some enforced 'call back' or collection of such firearms from legit suppliers...but then, that's an expensive process, which might be a deal breaker for such a law to be imposed if they want this to be effective, having it on papers with 'punishments yada yada 25 years...etc" isnt going to cut the mustard.


just curious is the film "God Bless America" stil available for viewing in the states?

 

[Foxrac]

who is your enemy then.apart from a thread of humanity(use word loosely)who hate anything or body in this world not only america..I afraid having all the state of the art weaponry will not stop them they killed far more not using guns. Repeal your gun laws will save a lot of ordinary americans lives

Excuse me - we don't have any laws that banned on guns, so only is regulated.

What is wrong with complete gun ban in UK? That's your country - UK, not our country.

It don't solve anything, especially CT school shooting is un-preventable.

 

[Reba]

who is your enemy then.apart from a thread of humanity(use word loosely)who hate anything or body in this world not only america..I afraid having all the state of the art weaponry will not stop them they killed far more not using guns. Repeal your gun laws will save a lot of ordinary americans lives

The enemy is anyone who attacks America with violence or a threat of violence.

 

[Reba]

Do you have source to support your claim about murder rate goes up from 1994 to 2004?

The FBI data doesn't back your claim.
FBI — Table 1

Do you have a chart that shows specifically mass murder rates?

That is, a chart that includes the definition of mass murder, how many instances of mass murders, how many fatalities at each instance, and how many non-fatal casualties at each instance?

It would be interesting to compare but I think it would be difficult to quantify since there are so many variables involved. Each mass murder event, even copy cat ones, is an individual circumstance, so they are really hard to compare.

 

[Reba]

he's correct. the murder rate went down after the assault weapon ban.

Murders by banned weapons only, or murders by all methods? Is there a proven direct cause and effect relationship?

 

[Reba]

...Now, I don't see federal assault weapon ban is contributed to increase of murder rate because the crime statistic said otherwise.

I think it would be hard to measure that correlation.

 

[Reba]

Of course not, it will not end mass murders but FEWER people in mass murders will be killed due to no assault weapons which can fire 100 bullets in a minute. So my point is that 50 people in one location would have hard times to escape when a murderer uses an assault weapon on them. All of them would be dead in ONE minute. In other words, some people can escape if the murderer uses a non-assault weapon which can't fire 100 bullets in a minute. Remember Columbina shooting, one of the guys used AR-15 with a drum magazine. If it was not jammed, many more students would be dead. Luckily, it was jammed so alot of students could escape. Think about that.

Not really.

There's more to the number of casualties than what kind of weapon is used. A lot depends on the setting. Rooms with only one exit are easy targets regardless of the gun used. Large numbers of people clustered together are easier targets than people scattered about. Children, elderly, mobility handicapped people are easier targets. Think about the entire scenario, not just the weapons involved.

 

[Reba]

Very good! Now compare them with mass shootings that involved AR-15 (Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook). How many people were dead in those shootings? How many people were dead in mass shootings that involved handguns (no assault weapons)?

How many people were present and cornered in each event? The bigger the crowd, the more casualties.

Remember "Going Postal"?

Which one? There were several.

The murderer used a handgun and there were only about 4-5 dead people so if he used an assault weapon instead, there would be 5X more dead people. Right? Be honest.

Did the shooter want mass casualties, or did the shooter want specific casualties? How many people were present as potential victims? If a room has only five people in it, then even if the shooter has a machine gun there won't be more casualties than there are people present.

[/quote]At NY Blaze, there would be more dead firefighters if cops didn't show up to fire back.[/quote]
Really? I thought your theory was that an AR-15 in use always resulted in mass casualties.

 

[Reba]

remember? I prefer to stick with facts... not emotions or assumptions.

Here’s the Chart That Supporters of a Federal Assault Weapons Ban Won’t Want to See | TheBlaze.com


the data from chart was obtained from FBI database - FBI — Table 20

where the heck did you get all these figures from your post like 5x and ........ ...... ...... ??? why don't you use facts instead?

Interesting chart.

I think it's obvious that the more shocking a killing is, the more attention it gets, so obviously mass murders get more interest than most individual handgun killings. Even people killed by being pushed in front of trains get more coverage, and they are extremely small in numbers.

As you show, it's not really about the numbers; it is emotions.

 

[CrazyPaul]

Murders by banned weapons only, or murders by all methods? Is there a proven direct cause and effect relationship?

That's a good question. The charts shown in this thread are too general. I notice that most of homicides or multi-homicides (excluding mass murders) are done by handguns so that's why handgun murders are leading. What about suicides? Do they count as murder?

 

[Reba]

...just curious is the film "God Bless America" stil available for viewing in the states?

This one?

God Bless America (2011) - IMDb

 

[diehardbiker]

Suicide is not considered murder, Murder means one killed other human being.

That's a good question. The charts shown in this thread are too general. I notice that most of homicides or multi-homicides (excluding mass murders) are done by handguns so that's why handgun murders are leading. What about suicides? Do they count as murder?

 

[Grummer]

This one?

God Bless America (2011) - IMDb

Yes