As far as mass shootings overall around the world, the United States isn’t even in the top five.

[LuckyNed]

President Obama made similar claims earlier this week and has said before “we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries.”

School shootings are not unique to the United States. In terms of death the toll, 13 of the largest 20 school shootings occurred elsewhere. Here’s a list:

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/10/436772-donald-trump-responds-oregon-shooting-gets-one-thing-really-wrong/?author=mh&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=owned&utm_campaign=politics&utm_term=ijamerica&utm_content=politics

 

[naturalmwa]

I see you didn't comprehend the statement. Maybe your school was running too many gun safety drills during English class.

 

[Sooner-Be-Dead]

This is a joke, right? From your own source. US has more than the rest of the list combined.

 

[naturalmwa]

Like I said, comprehension wasn't emphasised at his school. They probably spent too much time worried about spelling and penmanship as if those are important skills.

 

[LuckyNed]

 

[naturalmwa]

You should stop digging:

"We're a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment. We've got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves. My belief is that we have to enforce the laws we've already got, make sure that we're keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We've done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we've got more to do when it comes to enforcement. But weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don't belong on our streets. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there's an awful lot of violence and they're not using AK-47s. They're using cheap hand guns." – Presidential debate, Oct. 16, 2012.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/obama-gun-control-quotes/2014/11/02/id/602135/#ixzz3ncb4iLIj

 

[dgordo]

You know Chicago tried to ban guns too right?

 

[claykenny]

This is a joke, right? From your own source. US has more than the rest of the list combined.

I think he is referring to the "fatalities per 1,000,000 population" as the U.S. would be outside the top five by that metric.

If you combine the five countries ahead of the U.S. in fatalities per 1,000,000 population, you'd have a total population of ~30 million with 8 incidents leading to 110 fatalities. Or, if you multiply that by ten to equal the U.S. population, a rate equivalent to 80 incidents leading to 1100 fatalities. All of those countries have restrictive gun laws.

The raw numbers look bad until you consider the population and rate. I think most without an agenda would conclude that this isn't a problem isolated to the U.S.

There were 343 shooting murders in Chicago in 2014. Through September, they are up 21% for 2015 (on pace for 415). The vast majority of those are committed with illegal firearms. That is in a city of 2.7 million. If the entire country were like Chicago, there would be ~35,000 gun-related murders in a single year or 175,000 in a five year period similar to the one in the study. That's slightly higher than the 227 deaths from mass shootings over that time frame.

Just as another comparison to put 227 deaths into perspective... About 50 people, on average, are killed by lightning strikes in the U.S. each year, which would be roughly 250 people over a five-year period. Meaning your chance of being killed in a mass shooting is slightly lower than being killed by a lightning strike.

But, yeah, we definitely need more political grandstanding over mass shootings while ignoring real problems like gang violence.

 

[naturalmwa]

But, yeah, we definitely need more political grandstanding over mass shootings while ignoring real problems like gang violence.

Why are you acting like these things are in opposition? If you take steps to address one, you address the other. You can enter the arena through either door.

 

[Sooner-Be-Dead]

I think he is referring to the "fatalities per 1,000,000 population" as the U.S. would be outside the top five by that metric.

If you combine the five countries ahead of the U.S. in fatalities per 1,000,000 population, you'd have a total population of ~30 million with 8 incidents leading to 110 fatalities. Or, if you multiply that by ten to equal the U.S. population, a rate equivalent to 80 incidents leading to 1100 fatalities. All of those countries have restrictive gun laws.

The raw numbers look bad until you consider the population and rate. I think most without an agenda would conclude that this isn't a problem isolated to the U.S.

There were 343 shooting murders in Chicago in 2014. Through September, they are up 21% for 2015 (on pace for 415). The vast majority of those are committed with illegal firearms. That is in a city of 2.7 million. If the entire country were like Chicago, there would be ~35,000 gun-related murders in a single year or 175,000 in a five year period similar to the one in the study. That's slightly higher than the 227 deaths from mass shootings over that time frame.

Just as another comparison to put 227 deaths into perspective... About 50 people, on average, are killed by lightning strikes in the U.S. each year, which would be roughly 250 people over a five-year period. Meaning your chance of being killed in a mass shooting is slightly lower than being killed by a lightning strike.

But, yeah, we definitely need more political grandstanding over mass shootings while ignoring real problems like gang violence.

Absurd to look at that table and conclude the US has less of a problem than countries that have had 1 or 2 incidents. And if you want to look at per capita, look at statistics with a reasonable sample size, homicides for example, and you will find the US has a much higher rate.

Hell, even Illinois has a lower gun death rate than the South. But believe what you will.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

To paraphrase from Camelot: Never be too disturbed if you don't understand what a conservative is thinking. They don't do it very often.

 

[claykenny]

Absurd to look at that table and conclude the US has less of a problem than countries that have had 1 or 2 incidents. And if you want to look at per capita, look at statistics with a reasonable sample size, homicides for example, and you will find the US has a much higher rate.

Hell, even Illinois has a lower gun death rate than the South. But believe what you will.

It's absurd if you can't understand basic math.

How is 8 incidents leading to 110 fatalities in 30 million people not a "reasonable sample size" to compare to the 38 incidents and 227 fatalities in 300 million for the U.S.?

 

[Sooner-Be-Dead]

It's absurd if you can't understand basic math.

How is 8 incidents leading to 110 fatalities in 30 million people not a "reasonable sample size" to compare to the 38 incidents and 227 fatalities in 300 million for the U.S.?

Nice cherry pick. The combined population of the list is about equal to the US. 17 incidents vs 38.

 

[Sooner-Be-Dead]

The list is itself a cherry-pick since countries with zero incidents are left off. So how about we include Denmark, Ireland, Poland, Austria, Sweden, etc?


http://archive.is/f4gbv

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

In terms of death the toll, 13 of the largest 20 school shootings occurred elsewhere.

Seems to be true enough, based on the supporting graphic. But look at it another way.

Over a third of all the worst shootings belong to us - with less than 5% of the world's population - while the rest took the WHOLE WORLD to amass.

Even worse in recent years. We account for 4 of the worst 10 in the last decade.

I'm not sure what the point if this thread is. Seems to be yet another conservative gotcha. But you could at least be a bit more straight with the facts.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

President Obama made similar claims earlier this week and has said before “we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries.”

School shootings are not unique to the United States. In terms of death the toll, 13 of the largest 20 school shootings occurred elsewhere. Here’s a list:

So we only have a bit over a third of the 20 worst school massacres in the world dating back to the early 20th century. Something to brag about. And if you sort by date, we've had eight in the past four years - twice as many as the rest of the world combined. USA - USA - USA!!!

 

[TexMichFan]

You should stop digging:

"We're a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment. We've got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves. My belief is that we have to enforce the laws we've already got, make sure that we're keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We've done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we've got more to do when it comes to enforcement. But weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don't belong on our streets. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there's an awful lot of violence and they're not using AK-47s. They're using cheap hand guns." – Presidential debate, Oct. 16, 2012.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/obama-gun-control-quotes/2014/11/02/id/602135/#ixzz3ncb4iLIj

You really don't think the 2nd Amendment is there to make sure we can go hunting right?

 

[payton7622]

You really don't think the 2nd Amendment is there to make sure we can go hunting right?

You really don't think it's there so we can own ANY weapon of ANY type without ANY regulation, right?

 

[naturalmwa]

You really don't think the 2nd Amendment is there to make sure we can go hunting right?

I was rebutting the claim BHO was silent on Chicago. Almost no one ever gets the intent of the 2nd right on either side of this issue. The 2nd is there to eliminate the need for a standing army. We effectively repealed the 2nd a long time ago.

 

[TexMichFan]

I was rebutting the claim BHO was silent on Chicago. Almost no one ever gets the intent of the 2nd right on either side of this issue. The 2nd is there to eliminate the need for a standing army. We effectively repealed the 2nd a long time ago.

I like your reasoning here a lot better than your hunting one. I think you are partly right but I also believed it was passed with the thought of being a check on the government takeover.

I think this is balanced by providing that we could change our Constitution.

Reference:
The Second Amendment & the Right to Bear Arms
Chad Brooks, LiveScience Contributor | January 22, 2013 02:48pm ET

At the center of the gun control debate, few things are as hotly disputed in the United States as the Constitution's Second Amendment.

History of the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment provides U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. Ratified in December 1791, the amendment says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

James Madison originally proposed the Second Amendment shortly after the Constitution was officially ratified as a way to provide more power to state militias, which today are considered the National Guard. It was deemed a compromise between Federalists — those who supported the Constitution as it was ratified — and the anti-Federalists — those who supported states having more power. Having just used guns and other arms to ward off the English, the amendment was originally created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government.

 

[naturalmwa]

I like your reasoning here a lot better than your hunting one. I think you are partly right but I also believed it was passed with the thought of being a check on the government takeover.

I think this is balanced by providing that we could change our Constitution.

Reference:
The Second Amendment & the Right to Bear Arms
Chad Brooks, LiveScience Contributor | January 22, 2013 02:48pm ET

At the center of the gun control debate, few things are as hotly disputed in the United States as the Constitution's Second Amendment.

History of the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment provides U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. Ratified in December 1791, the amendment says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

James Madison originally proposed the Second Amendment shortly after the Constitution was officially ratified as a way to provide more power to state militias, which today are considered the National Guard. It was deemed a compromise between Federalists — those who supported the Constitution as it was ratified — and the anti-Federalists — those who supported states having more power. Having just used guns and other arms to ward off the English, the amendment was originally created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government.

The Hunting analysis isn't mine, but Obama's. But your expert is wrong about the right to rebellion being the intent. Decentralization of power to the states sure, but not to individuals. The 2nd only became an individual right in recent memory.

 

[TexMichFan]

The Hunting analysis isn't mine, but Obama's. But your expert is wrong about the right to rebellion being the intent. Decentralization of power to the states sure, but not to individuals. The 2nd only became an individual right in recent memory.

How do you know he is wrong?

 

[naturalmwa]

How do you know he is wrong?

Shays Rebellion put that idea to the test and George Washinton made it clear that was not the point of the 2nd. The point of the 2nd was in fact the opposite, to make it easy and lawful to suppress the individual right to resist government by giving the government access to armed and regulated militias it could call on in any state they were needed.

 

[LuckyNed]

Shays Rebellion put that idea to the test and George Washinton made it clear that was not the point of the 2nd. The point of the 2nd was in fact the opposite, to make it easy and lawful to suppress the individual right to resist government by giving the government access to armed and regulated militias it could call on in any state they were needed.

In recent years the courts do no support your analysis of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[dgordo]

In recent years the courts do no support your analysis of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

True but before Heller the scotus never believed the second infered the right to individual gun ownership.

 

[SWIowahawks]

Shays Rebellion put that idea to the test and George Washinton made it clear that was not the point of the 2nd. The point of the 2nd was in fact the opposite, to make it easy and lawful to suppress the individual right to resist government by giving the government access to armed and regulated militias it could call on in any state they were needed.

I'm too lazy to look them up but I've seen many quotes from Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and James Madison, among others; that explain the purpose for the 2nd amendment. All of whom said it was for personal protection from the govt.

 

[naturalmwa]

In recent years the courts do no support your analysis of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

I'm aware, which is why I wrote that the 2nd as an individual right was a recent development by judicial activists. I noted the right was OK with that expansion of court power however.

 

[naturalmwa]

I'm too lazy to look them up but I've seen many quotes from Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and James Madison, among others; that explain the purpose for the 2nd amendment. All of whom said it was for personal protection from the govt.

I don't think you have. I think you have seen quotes out of context unrelated to the actual 2nd.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

You really don't think it's there so we can own ANY weapon of ANY type without ANY regulation, right?

Those regulations are already in place. We can't own automatic weapons, or weapons of war.
An AR-15 is not even close to being equal to an M-16 or and M-4, in power or ability.

But it sure looks scary.

 

[TexMichFan]

Those regulations are already in place. We can't own automatic weapons, or weapons of war.
An AR-15 is not even close to being equal to an M-16 or and M-4, in power or ability.

But it sure looks scary.

Did not feel the need to reply to his post since if you are that uninformed you really can't be taken seriously in this discussion.

 

[Hawk and Awe]

I hate posts like this and am so sick of the anti-anti-gun movement. We get it - you are satisfied with the level of gun violence in this country.

 

[TexMichFan]

I hate posts like this and am so sick of the anti-anti-gun movement. We get it - you are satisfied with the level of gun violence in this country.

Missing the point on a lot of the discussion.

 

[Hawk and Awe]

Missing the point on a lot of the discussion.

Only responding to the OP and those with a snarky attitude towards gun control. The other side of the argument is extremely important and I value their views on a constitutional right. I'm just tired of people that can't discuss the issue like a grown up.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

Did not feel the need to reply to his post since if you are that uninformed you really can't be taken seriously in this discussion.

Misinformed? I own an AR-15, and spent years firing and using the M-16/M-4 platform. They are not the same weapon. There are several parts that are different in design and function,and they are not interchangeable.

There are many regulations in place that prohibit people from obtaining certain types of weapons, and weapons of war.

 

[TexMichFan]

Misinformed? I own an AR-15, and spent years firing and using the M-16/M-4 platform. They are not the same weapon. There are several parts that are different in design and function,and they are not interchangeable.

There are many regulations in place that prohibit people from obtaining certain types of weapons, and weapons of war.

Talking about the poster you were responding to which was in response to a post I made.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

Talking about the poster you were responding to which was in response to a post I made.

Roger that.

 

[linkshero]

Adults that don't own guys, probably never will. They will never understand the other side of the argument, or what impact a ban on guns may have on them personally. I guess it's reasonable to assume the reverse as well, maybe. I hope it's not just a "I don't have one, so nobody else should" mentality, but sadly, for many, that's probably the case.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

Adults that don't own guys, probably never will. They will never understand the other side of the argument, or what impact a ban on guns may have on them personally. I guess it's reasonable to assume the reverse as well, maybe. I hope it's not just a "I don't have one, so nobody else should" mentality, but sadly, for many, that's probably the case.

Unfortunately too often the argument is "bad things happen, so because a tiny fraction of people can't act responsibly, then no one should have them". Which is just as absurd as the "more guns will counter balance the criminal element.", argument.

 

[LuckyNed]

If you don't care for guns simply don't own one, case closed.

 

[naturalmwa]

Adults that don't own guys, probably never will.

That's why you need to train them young.