334 days and 351 U.S. mass shootings in 2015

[Didymus 34,380]

9 hours ago, ARTPOPdidntflop said:

But people don't use cars to murder people on the scale that people use guns to murder people 

How does that matter? They still result in thousands of deaths each year. In fact, you could almost argue that because people don't aim to kill with them and yet they still cause those thousands of death, they're even more dangerous.

Nor do I think it's correct to ignore that 99% of the people owning guns in the States probably never killed anybody.

[ARTPOPdidntflop 3,987]

11 minutes ago, Didymus said:

How does that matter? They still result in thousands of deaths each year. In fact, you could almost argue that because people don't aim to kill with them and yet they still cause those thousands of death, they're even more dangerous.

Nor do I think it's correct to ignore that 99% of the people owning guns in the States probably never killed anybody.

people need cars, you don't need a gun

[Didymus 34,380]

5 hours ago, ARTPOPdidntflop said:

people need cars, you don't need a gun

There are easy alternatives to cars that would benefit more than just the environment. I'm not pro-gun in any way but that doesn't make these ridiculous arguments less retarded People don't need anything, it's because they feel they need something that they can defend something in the face of its dangers. The exact same logic for car and gun owners.

[AlphaMonster 1,806]

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/ 

This article is good to see the picture from a wider perspective... 

Article compares statistics related to mass public shootings of US and that of european countries with respect to their populations which is important because comparing number of mass shooting in US to a european country would be illogical considering US' population is much bigger than any european country.

PS: There are also data about suicide bombing attacks' being more rare in US. 

[Didymus 34,380]

4 minutes ago, AlphaMonster said:

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/ 

This article is good to see the picture from a wider perspective... 

Article compares statistics related to mass public shootings of us, and european countries with respect to their populations which is important because comparing number of mass shooting in US to a european country would be illogical considering US' population is much bigger than any european country.

Mess, I had no idea. Great post/article, thanks. Mandatory reading for anyone who's gonna post in this thread. The replies are also a great read.

[Didymus 34,380]

Nice supplement: http://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/

Before people jump with "that's just minimizing the problem" comments: clearly there doesn't seem to be a convincing correlation between having a lot of guns around and people using them to shoot others, like so many people say. "The problem is behavior, not guns" as the author says. Interesting stuff.

[Qualle1 1,385]

5 hours ago, Didymus said:

Mess, I had no idea. Great post/article, thanks. Mandatory reading for anyone who's gonna post in this thread. The replies are also a great read.

We have talked about this subject before. There have been plenty of threads and discussions, where European members pointed out, that there is a significant difference between the USA and Europe regarding the amount of mass shootings, the number of casualties as well as the number of (defensive) gun use by the police.

[Didymus 34,380]

6 minutes ago, Qualle1 said:

We have talked about this subject before. There have been plenty of threads and discussions, where European members pointed out, that there is a significant difference between the USA and Europe regarding the amount of mass shootings, the number of casualties as well as the number of (defensive) gun use by the police.

Well, ok.. good that you talked about it before, I sure didn't in the way the article does it, so I see no reason why we shouldn't discuss the arguments. I mean, the article is basically a response to people saying that there are significant differences (as in: the U.S. suffers more than any other Western country).

The whole point of the articles in any case is that gun possession does not directly lead to more violence. I'm not saying because I read that that it's true, but why would that not be interesting to discuss with tens of statistic graphics that are altered to assign equal weight to each country in terms of population size to defend/criticize?

[Qualle1 1,385]

5 hours ago, AlphaMonster said:

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/ 

This article is good to see the picture from a wider perspective... 

Article compares statistics related to mass public shootings of US and that of european countries with respect to their populations which is important because comparing number of mass shooting in US to a european country would be illogical considering US' population is much bigger than any european country.

PS: There are also data about suicide bombing attacks' being more rare in US. 

Sorry, but the article is a little bit misleading, because it doesn't count every shooting (f. e. between gangs or during roberies).

I have posted links to statistics before, where you can clearly see, that the number of death because of shootings was very much higher in the USA in comparsion to Europe.

[Qualle1 1,385]

6 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Well, ok.. good that you talked about it before, I sure didn't in the way the article does it, so I see no reason why we shouldn't discuss the arguments. I mean, the article is basically a response to people saying that there are significant differences (as in: the U.S. suffers more than any other Western country).

The whole point of the articles in any case is that gun possession does not directly lead to more violence. I'm not saying because I read that that it's true, but why would that not be interesting to discuss with tens of statistic graphics that are altered to assign equal weight to each country in terms of population size to defend/criticize?

As I already posted above: The number of casualties is very much higher in the USA, if you count every shooting - and not only mass shootings.

[Didymus 34,380]

1 minute ago, Qualle1 said:

Sorry, but the article is misleading, because it doesn't count every shooting (f. e. between gangs or during roberies).

I have posted links to statistics before, where you can clearly see, that the number of death because of shootings was very much higher in the USA in comparsion to Europe.

That's because some of them, like gang fights and other crime-related shootings, are related to other crimes. The article addresses this, it's because it's about mass public shootings or active shooter incidences (term of the FBI: they also don't include crime-related shootings in their reports of it, so I don't see how it's misleading):

"Mass public shootings – defined as four or more people killed, and not in the course of committing another crime, and not involving struggles over sovereignty."

This is important because the article is a response to Obama's claims that mass violence (not referring to crime-related shootings) was unique in frequency and gravity for the U.S.

3 minutes ago, Qualle1 said:

As I already posted above: The number of casualties is very much higher in the USA, if you count every shooting - and not only mass shootings.

This may be so, but I still don't see how that relates to the key argument of the texts: more (legal) guns do not mean more violence. In this context two replies (in relation to each other) on the second article I find very interesting:

"What is not usually shown is that the vast majority of murders occur in the cities with the strictest gun control laws."

"I agree and the reason why it’s higher is because it makes it a lot harder for the people who are responsible gun owners to have guns. The people who do murder are not going to care about breaking a few extra laws to get the gun."

Reiterated below:

"Illegal guns are the ones used in 99% of all gun crimes. Also look at the statistics based on crime in the city compared to countryside and you will find the cities are the problems. Now look at the laws, strict gun control laws do not prevent criminals from committing gun crimes, because they do not purchase them legally and criminals do not care about laws."

This is an important point that I don't think can be left undiscussed just because the shootings made with illegal guns cause more damage than anywhere else. In fact that only strengthens the author's point. And if you say, and that's definitely relevant, that a lot of those illegal guns were actually once legally obtained, that identifies a different problem than legal gun ownership. In that case the real danger is legal guns ended up in the hands of criminals. A completely different problem indeed that requires different solutions than banning all guns in the delusion that violence with (illegal) guns will disappear.

[AlphaMonster 1,806]

1 hour ago, Qualle1 said:

Sorry, but the article is a little bit misleading, because it doesn't count every shooting (f. e. between gangs or during roberies).

I have posted links to statistics before, where you can clearly see, that the number of death because of shootings was very much higher in the USA in comparsion to Europe.

I don't think that article is totally unbiased, should be referenced without questioning.

I only saw people comparing numbers of US with numbers of some other european countries which were very misleading due to significant differences of populations so I shared what I found online. 

[ARTPOPdidntflop 3,987]

8 hours ago, Didymus said:

There are easy alternatives to cars that would benefit more than just the environment. I'm not pro-gun in any way but that doesn't make these ridiculous arguments less retarded People don't need anything, it's because they feel they need something that they can defend something in the face of its dangers. The exact same logic for car and gun owners.

I'm sorry but there are many people who don't live close to their work where cycling isn't an option. Most people lose their jobs when they lose their cars. Even the bus system is becoming extremely overloaded and only so many people can catch trains and buses (Assuming that their route matches with your work/house's route).

 

To think Cars aren't an extremely valuable form of transport that people NEED is coming from a place of privilege when you can just bike to work - many can't. 

 

Many people live MILES from where they work. Especially impoverished families where maybe no-where close to home accepted their job application. Taking away their car means they can't access a whole section of jobs in another area.

[Didymus 34,380]

Just now, ARTPOPdidntflop said:

I'm sorry but there are many people who don't live close to their work where cycling isn't an option. Most people lose their jobs when they lose their cars. Even the bus system is becoming extremely overloaded and only so many people can catch trains and buses (Assuming that their route matches with your work/house's route).

To think Cars aren't an extremely valuable form of transport that people NEED is coming from a place of privilege when you can just bike to work - many can't. 

Many people live MILES from where they work. Especially impoverished families where maybe no-where close to home accepted their job application. Taking away their car means they can't access a whole section of jobs in another area.

Then governments need to invest in public transport I'm not saying cars should go away btw, I'm just saying that there's no good reason why such damaging products should be ignored while guns are presented as the nucleus of evil in society.

[ARTPOPdidntflop 3,987]

8 hours ago, Didymus said:

There are easy alternatives to cars that would benefit more than just the environment. I'm not pro-gun in any way but that doesn't make these ridiculous arguments less retarded People don't need anything, it's because they feel they need something that they can defend something in the face of its dangers. The exact same logic for car and gun owners.

why do people want to own an item which it's purpose is to shoot and kill so badly. In my part of the world we banned guns and have had no mass shootings and minimal gun violence