Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 1:59:04 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2019 12:44:35 GMT -5
OK What are you going to do to stop these shootings, where the did everything with in law right up to when the shooting starts?? Even if they didn't, bought it off the street, from another convicted felon, how are you going to stop it??
CHANGE THE LAW! To what ? If a criminal won't be deterred by a murder law and the ultimate penalty waiting for the offenders. You think he will even notice a gun law ?
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,389
|
Post by thyme4change on Aug 7, 2019 15:05:28 GMT -5
Glad I was there a few days before this.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,343
|
Post by NastyWoman on Aug 7, 2019 18:37:41 GMT -5
Glad I was there a few days before this. I saw that last night on the news. Americans are very afraid with reason, yet the GOP, through the iron hand of Moscow Mitch, holds fast in blocking any legislation regarding background checks etc. reaching the floor of the senate to be voted on...
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Aug 7, 2019 19:30:29 GMT -5
To what ? If a criminal won't be deterred by a murder law and the ultimate penalty waiting for the offenders. You think he will even notice a gun law ? Yes I do based on the lower gun crime rates in countries with sensible gun laws. I have evidence, all you have is self serving protection.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Aug 7, 2019 19:40:34 GMT -5
So you go for the low hanging fruit of Chicago. We know what the firearms problem is in Chicago-gangs and easily purchased and transported firearms from your home state of Indiana. Yet you posted nothing about El Paso. Not a single word. trump owns the deaths in El Paso. trump may not have pulled the trigger but he sure provided the impetus. And by the way, you misspelled cumulative. Stay away from multisyllabic words. 1, As you know I have been an advocate to protect the poor communities of Chicago against gang violence for years here. About two weeks ago two young mothers who were part of a "mothers against deadly gun violence" in the neighborhoods were gunned down on a street corner while patrolling their neighborhood as they usually do. It is not just gang members dieing in the strrets. Kids shot on porch stoops, or sitting in the house with bullets coming through the windows, etc. 2. Firearms from Indiana. Yes, some legal purchases, some from other gangs in Indiana. Once they cross the city limits of Chicago, the owners are now breaking Chicago gun laws. No different than white shooters legally buying guns and using them illegally to shoot innocent people. Lest we forget, many of the guns are stolen from local homeowners in burglaries as well as pistols left in their cars....... 3. El Paso. If I post anything will I change anyone's mind here? No. I also have been posting less here due to the hysteria of the majority of posters here. Check my postings from the last few weeks. I am basically not here weekends anymore, and even Monday I only had a couple of posts. TDS is alive and well here and members such as you, have chased any Posters away who want an actual discussion, so blame yourself and others for lack of posting. Get back to me why mass killings are still ocurring after long gun confiscation occurs. Remember, many mass shootings actually ocurred via guns taken from other family members without their knowledge. Ban long gun purchases now, which I can no longer be against, despite the 2nd Amendment, but how do you take millions of them out of circulation around the country already here? 3. Spelling. Get over it. You have become a spelling Nazi and I imagine some people snicker at your snide remarks while others think, why do this, but will not bother saying it publicly because they are also suffering emotionally against our President. It makes you seem very shallow and I know you are a very smart person. 4. My post was to point out the public bashing of young white men (without also calling out young black men) that there are more mass murders ocurring in America every day, but do not meet the standards of four deaths. National media basically ignores the killings in Chicago, Baltimore, even Indianapolis. Local media does cover this slaughter. They happen one or two at a time, but add the weekend total numbers in each city, you have multiple killers killing multiple number of people. This is still terrible gun violence even if they are promarily just "gang bangers killing each other to control the white drug trade with the suburburn whites who are majority in their teens and 20's. Talk about racial biasis by liberals........it does not just live within conservatives heads....... (I did not check any spelling in this post before posting!) We are the ones FOR stricter gun laws remember. I am against gang violence as well. Saying that black gun crime is ignored is disingenuous, there is lots of attention given to black and brown murderers and terrorists. It's far more common for people like you to get pissy when it is pointed out how many white supremacists are terrorists. I'd be thrilled with stricter gun laws on hand guns AND assault weapons. The compromise is just asking for the assault weapons.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 7, 2019 20:18:05 GMT -5
You're Canadian right, why are you so wound up with U.S. laws?
I'd be thrilled with stricter gun laws on hand guns AND assault weapons.
Woooo Hoooo let's round up all the gun,, I said it was coming,, All I heard was we don't want your guns,, well now you do!!
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 7, 2019 20:21:41 GMT -5
In these Cities or some you want to look at,, how many of the shooting are committed with a assault rifle,,
You will find very few!! they are used more often in mass shooting,, but only like 11% of the time,, and mass shooting are only like 1% of the shootings. So you ban assault rifles,, how many did you save,, and if they didn't have assault rifles they would have other weapons, The ones doing the shooting are not law biding citizens,,
How many need to be saved to make it worthwhile? Unless I'm very much mistaken, the Texas terrorist was law abiding up until the minute he opened fire. My understanding is he had no problem buying that gun legally. This week we had three white men in mass shootings, Change the law,, that affects 100 million law biding gun owners?? That have done nothing wrong!!
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 7, 2019 20:26:15 GMT -5
Kinda funny,, You want to make changes that effect 100 million+ law biding gun owners that have done nothing wrong,,
Yet look how you have whined over a measly 3 million that voted for Hillary.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Aug 7, 2019 20:26:22 GMT -5
You're Canadian right, why are you so wound up with U.S. laws?
I'd be thrilled with stricter gun laws on hand guns AND assault weapons.
Woooo Hoooo let's round up all the gun,, I said it was coming,, All I heard was we don't want your guns,, well now you do!! LMAO Good way to ignore "the compromise is just getting rid of assault rifles". And there would be the BIG difference between you and me. I'm willing to compromise. You won't and kids are dying because of it. What do you mean why do I care if the nut job neighbours on the other side of the world's longest non militarized border have unfettered access to assault weapons? Is that really your question?
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Aug 7, 2019 20:28:08 GMT -5
How many need to be saved to make it worthwhile? Unless I'm very much mistaken, the Texas terrorist was law abiding up until the minute he opened fire. My understanding is he had no problem buying that gun legally. This week we had three white men in mass shootings, Change the law,, that affects 100 million law biding gun owners?? That have done nothing wrong!! You had 31 people die. They did nothing wrong.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Aug 7, 2019 20:29:12 GMT -5
Kinda funny,, You want to make changes that effect 100 million+ law biding gun owners that have done nothing wrong,,
Yet look how you have whined over a measly 3 million that voted for Hillary. No, I whine about the voter booth tampering that bought Trump the election illegally.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Aug 7, 2019 20:32:44 GMT -5
Kinda funny,, You want to make changes that effect 100 million+ law biding gun owners that have done nothing wrong,,
Yet look how you have whined over a measly 3 million that voted for Hillary. One brown guy thinks about making a bomb on a plane and I can't take more than 3 ounces of my favourite shampoo on vacation. Life sucks sometimes.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 7, 2019 21:34:32 GMT -5
A quick count of deaths on this tracker, 382 so far this year. I had trouble finding any reliable numbers. This is this year, from January, Each is at least 4 shot. killed or wounded. I happened to pick, deaths. Even if we doubled the number, to 764, mass shooting deaths, then X10= 7640. into
329,299,000 pop. = 430890. Where is Virgil when I need him!
Virgil wouldn't help you here. Your numbers are not the issue. Your understanding is the issue. First, your made-up number of 1 in 100,000,000 is ridiculous. That would mean that there were somewhere around 64 billion people in the United States. Clearly wrong. Second, you are trying to figure someone's chance of being killed in a mass shooting this year. The number given earlier (1 in 11,125) is a lifetime risk. That means it doesn't have to happen this year. Even that number does not include the number wounded or traumatized, or the family and friends of victims. If we add in those persons as "victims" or otherwise negatively and personally affected by mass shootings, the lifetime risk is easily less than 1 in 1,000. To personalize that, it would mean that the odds are good that someone within probably a two- or three-block radius of your house has been or will be personally affected by a mass shooting. That is of course an average, and does not take other factors into account, but either way it shows that it is not so rare an occurrence, and not something to be trivialized by your silliness.
Those shootings are a small fraction of the overall number of gun-related deaths. In 2015, of the 25,000 gun-related injuries in the United Stated, 12,000 resulted in death. Of those, 39 were from mass shootings.
The National Safety Council puts the lifetime risk of being killed in the United States by any assault with a firearm at 1 in 358.
The lifetime risk of dying in a mass shooting is around 1 in 110,154 — about the same chance of dying from a dog attack or legal execution.
There is a three times greater chance of dying from a sharp object than from a mass shooting. The chance of dying from lightning, though, is lower.
In fact, there are many more likely ways to die than in a mass shooting.
Heart disease and cancer are at the top — the risk of dying is 1 in 7. And even dying in a motor vehicle crash is higher — 1 in 113.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 7, 2019 21:36:44 GMT -5
Kinda funny,, You want to make changes that effect 100 million+ law biding gun owners that have done nothing wrong,,
Yet look how you have whined over a measly 3 million that voted for Hillary. One brown guy thinks about making a bomb on a plane and I can't take more than 3 ounces of my favourite shampoo on vacation. Life sucks sometimes. That for sure is not my fault.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,141
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 7, 2019 22:29:21 GMT -5
Virgil wouldn't help you here. Your numbers are not the issue. Your understanding is the issue. First, your made-up number of 1 in 100,000,000 is ridiculous. That would mean that there were somewhere around 64 billion people in the United States. Clearly wrong. Second, you are trying to figure someone's chance of being killed in a mass shooting this year. The number given earlier (1 in 11,125) is a lifetime risk. That means it doesn't have to happen this year. Even that number does not include the number wounded or traumatized, or the family and friends of victims. If we add in those persons as "victims" or otherwise negatively and personally affected by mass shootings, the lifetime risk is easily less than 1 in 1,000. To personalize that, it would mean that the odds are good that someone within probably a two- or three-block radius of your house has been or will be personally affected by a mass shooting. That is of course an average, and does not take other factors into account, but either way it shows that it is not so rare an occurrence, and not something to be trivialized by your silliness.
Those shootings are a small fraction of the overall number of gun-related deaths. In 2015, of the 25,000 gun-related injuries in the United Stated, 12,000 resulted in death. Of those, 39 were from mass shootings.
The National Safety Council puts the lifetime risk of being killed in the United States by any assault with a firearm at 1 in 358.
The lifetime risk of dying in a mass shooting is around 1 in 110,154 — about the same chance of dying from a dog attack or legal execution.
There is a three times greater chance of dying from a sharp object than from a mass shooting. The chance of dying from lightning, though, is lower.
In fact, there are many more likely ways to die than in a mass shooting.
Heart disease and cancer are at the top — the risk of dying is 1 in 7. And even dying in a motor vehicle crash is higher — 1 in 113.You are using an old article. It gives a number of 39 mass shooting deaths in 2015. In 2016 there were 50 in the Orlando shooting alone. In 2017 there were 59 in the Las Vegas shooting alone. In 2018 there were four separate shootings where the death toll was in double figures, and in 2019 there are three such shootings so far. Your article puts the lifetime risk at 1 in 110,154. The numbers are dramatically higher now, accounting for the 1 in 11,125 number. Now, are these numbers smaller than the totals for all gun deaths? Of course, but that indicates a problem with ALL guns, not just so-called assault rifles.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Aug 7, 2019 22:32:31 GMT -5
Kinda funny,, You want to make changes that effect 100 million+ law biding gun owners that have done nothing wrong,,
Yet look how you have whined over a measly 3 million that voted for Hillary. No, I whine about the voter booth tampering that bought Trump the election illegally. Which did not happen.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,141
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 7, 2019 22:38:51 GMT -5
I will agree that the intentional disenfranchisement of voters likely to vote Democratic had a much larger effect.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 7, 2019 23:07:47 GMT -5
Virgil wouldn't help you here. Your numbers are not the issue. Your understanding is the issue. First, your made-up number of 1 in 100,000,000 is ridiculous. That would mean that there were somewhere around 64 billion people in the United States. Clearly wrong. Second, you are trying to figure someone's chance of being killed in a mass shooting this year. The number given earlier (1 in 11,125) is a lifetime risk. That means it doesn't have to happen this year. Even that number does not include the number wounded or traumatized, or the family and friends of victims. If we add in those persons as "victims" or otherwise negatively and personally affected by mass shootings, the lifetime risk is easily less than 1 in 1,000. To personalize that, it would mean that the odds are good that someone within probably a two- or three-block radius of your house has been or will be personally affected by a mass shooting. That is of course an average, and does not take other factors into account, but either way it shows that it is not so rare an occurrence, and not something to be trivialized by your silliness.
Those shootings are a small fraction of the overall number of gun-related deaths. In 2015, of the 25,000 gun-related injuries in the United Stated, 12,000 resulted in death. Of those, 39 were from mass shootings.
The National Safety Council puts the lifetime risk of being killed in the United States by any assault with a firearm at 1 in 358.
The lifetime risk of dying in a mass shooting is around 1 in 110,154 — about the same chance of dying from a dog attack or legal execution.
There is a three times greater chance of dying from a sharp object than from a mass shooting. The chance of dying from lightning, though, is lower.
In fact, there are many more likely ways to die than in a mass shooting.
Heart disease and cancer are at the top — the risk of dying is 1 in 7. And even dying in a motor vehicle crash is higher — 1 in 113.39? Not a single month in 2015 was free from a mass shooting. Overall, 468 died from 372 mass shootings in 2015. June witnessed the greatest number of mass shootings of any given month, and June 13 saw the greatest number of mass shootings — six in all. www.vox.com/a/mass-shootings-calendar-2015
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 8, 2019 0:01:42 GMT -5
Those shootings are a small fraction of the overall number of gun-related deaths. In 2015, of the 25,000 gun-related injuries in the United Stated, 12,000 resulted in death. Of those, 39 were from mass shootings.
The National Safety Council puts the lifetime risk of being killed in the United States by any assault with a firearm at 1 in 358.
The lifetime risk of dying in a mass shooting is around 1 in 110,154 — about the same chance of dying from a dog attack or legal execution.
There is a three times greater chance of dying from a sharp object than from a mass shooting. The chance of dying from lightning, though, is lower.
In fact, there are many more likely ways to die than in a mass shooting.
Heart disease and cancer are at the top — the risk of dying is 1 in 7. And even dying in a motor vehicle crash is higher — 1 in 113.39? Not a single month in 2015 was free from a mass shooting. Overall, 468 died from 372 mass shootings in 2015. June witnessed the greatest number of mass shootings of any given month, and June 13 saw the greatest number of mass shootings — six in all. www.vox.com/a/mass-shootings-calendar-2015330,000,000 divided by 468 =705128 to one. What is your point?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,141
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 8, 2019 0:12:31 GMT -5
39? Not a single month in 2015 was free from a mass shooting. Overall, 468 died from 372 mass shootings in 2015. June witnessed the greatest number of mass shootings of any given month, and June 13 saw the greatest number of mass shootings — six in all. www.vox.com/a/mass-shootings-calendar-2015330,000,000 divided by 468 =705128 to one. What is your point?
Missed on the definition again, didn't ya?
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 8, 2019 0:29:21 GMT -5
Whoa,, Not a Trump follower?? Now what are you going to do??
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,141
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 8, 2019 0:43:25 GMT -5
Not blame Trump or his rhetoric for this one?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 8, 2019 1:30:11 GMT -5
39? Not a single month in 2015 was free from a mass shooting. Overall, 468 died from 372 mass shootings in 2015. June witnessed the greatest number of mass shootings of any given month, and June 13 saw the greatest number of mass shootings — six in all. www.vox.com/a/mass-shootings-calendar-2015330,000,000 divided by 468 =705128 to one. What is your point?
My point? It was 468 dead, not 39 as you claimed.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 8, 2019 2:28:52 GMT -5
39? Not a single month in 2015 was free from a mass shooting. Overall, 468 died from 372 mass shootings in 2015. June witnessed the greatest number of mass shootings of any given month, and June 13 saw the greatest number of mass shootings — six in all. www.vox.com/a/mass-shootings-calendar-2015330,000,000 divided by 468 =705128 to one. What is your point?
......and once again, you're not all that bright, are you? That's not how odds are calculated. Your odds of getting injured by a toilet are 96.4 in 100,000. If nobody is injured by a toilet in ONE YEAR, your odds don't drop down to zero. The odds of getting hit by lightening are 94 in a million. If nobody gets hit by lightening in ONE YEAR, your odds don't drop down to zero. You don't understand ANYTHING.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 8, 2019 8:02:44 GMT -5
330,000,000 divided by 468 =705128 to one. What is your point?
My point? It was 468 dead, not 39 as you claimed. OK I used your number.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 8, 2019 8:07:30 GMT -5
Not blame Trump or his rhetoric for this one? Let's blame Warren on this one,, It makes as much sense to blame Warren as to blame Trump.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 8, 2019 8:13:16 GMT -5
330,000,000 divided by 468 =705128 to one. What is your point?
......and once again, you're not all that bright, are you? That's not how odds are calculated. Your odds of getting injured by a toilet are 96.4 in 100,000. If nobody is injured by a toilet in ONE YEAR, your odds don't drop down to zero. The odds of getting hit by lightening are 94 in a million. If nobody gets hit by lightening in ONE YEAR, your odds don't drop down to zero. You don't understand ANYTHING. None of the numbers mean anything, because no one agrees on the definition, Even if some one does come up with a number,, why should we believe any study,, they all use different bases. Wow toilets huh! how many were injured by "flying" toilets??
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 8, 2019 8:15:41 GMT -5
Looking at how "Experts"determine, their numbers, reminds me of the Climate Change scientist,, and their forecasts.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,141
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 8, 2019 11:08:34 GMT -5
Not blame Trump or his rhetoric for this one? Let's blame Warren on this one,, It makes as much sense to blame Warren as to blame Trump. No, it really doesn't. Warren isn't out there fomenting hatred with talk about "invasions" by criminals and rapists, or laughing off suggestions of shooting people. Trump is.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,389
|
Post by thyme4change on Aug 8, 2019 11:22:18 GMT -5
I am confused. It seems like the gun people are extremely fearful of the government busting into their houses and seizing their guns.
So, the liberals say - hey, can we have a law where you can keep your guns, and buy new guns, but you have to take a little test and get a license.
And the conservatives answer is - NO we need a law where the government can bust into an individual's house and seize their guns.
??Please explain. ?? ??
|
|