The U.S.A. Mass Shootings Thread
Discussion
Graph showing mass murder death tolls in the US during the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that was in place in the US from 1994-2004. The act essentially prohibited the manufacture, transfer and possession of semi-automatic assault weapons, and large capacity (10+ rounds) magazines. It expired in 2004 and efforts to reinstate it since have failed, essentially due to influence from the NRA.
Look at this and tell me with a straight face that you still don’t think there’s anything of significance here.
Look at this and tell me with a straight face that you still don’t think there’s anything of significance here.
dvs_dave said:
Graph showing mass murder death tolls in the US during the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that was in place in the US from 1994-2004. The act essentially prohibited the manufacture, transfer and possession of semi-automatic assault weapons, and large capacity (10+ rounds) magazines. It expired in 2004 and efforts to reinstate it since have failed, essentially due to influence from the NRA.
Look at this and tell me with a straight face that you still don’t think there’s anything of significance here.
Look at this and tell me with a straight face that you still don’t think there’s anything of significance here.
- Straight face engaged*
John145 said:
DurianIceCream said:
John145 said:
I really can't justify any kind of automatic weapon for a civilian. If you're too lazy to work a bolt action when target practicing then you're never going to be winning anything.
Do you need to rethink your post - automatic rifles are not legally available to civilians anywhere (exceptionally limited exceptions in the US and probably failed states with no laws)dvs_dave said:
Graph showing mass murder death tolls in the US during the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that was in place in the US from 1994-2004. The act essentially prohibited the manufacture, transfer and possession of semi-automatic assault weapons, and large capacity (10+ rounds) magazines. It expired in 2004 and efforts to reinstate it since have failed, essentially due to influence from the NRA.
Look at this and tell me with a straight face that you still don’t think there’s anything of significance here.
There is nothing remarkable about the period, it is not particularly distinct from the same period before and after, though things get pretty crazy post 2012.Look at this and tell me with a straight face that you still don’t think there’s anything of significance here.
What I find most interesting are the spikes that seem to happen at regular intervals. I haven’t got an explanation, but the graph really highlights it. Let’s also not forget that whilst mass shootings are tragedies they are statistically miniscule in the scheme of total deaths in the US.
Edited by j_4m on Saturday 23 March 14:36
j_4m said:
dvs_dave said:
Graph showing mass murder death tolls in the US during the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that was in place in the US from 1994-2004. The act essentially prohibited the manufacture, transfer and possession of semi-automatic assault weapons, and large capacity (10+ rounds) magazines. It expired in 2004 and efforts to reinstate it since have failed, essentially due to influence from the NRA.
Look at this and tell me with a straight face that you still don’t think there’s anything of significance here.
There is nothing remarkable about the period, it is not particularly distinct from the same period before and after, though things get pretty crazy post 2012.Look at this and tell me with a straight face that you still don’t think there’s anything of significance here.
What I find most interesting are the spikes that seem to happen at regular intervals. I haven’t got an explanation, but the graph really highlights it. Let’s also not forget that whilst mass shootings are tragedies they are statistically miniscule in the scheme of total deaths in the US.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 23 March 14:36
And the spikes simply indicate when one nutter ‘got lucky’ and scored many victims in a particular event that year.
DurianIceCream said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_rifle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_rifle
You don't need to take my word or Wikipedia's word for it. Semi-auto and automatic is defined in legislation by governments around the world, including in the UK and including in NZ. Automatic is prohibited.
We could forget about what me, Wikipedia and legislation which has passed through parliament says and just use your definition though.
Let's.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_rifle
You don't need to take my word or Wikipedia's word for it. Semi-auto and automatic is defined in legislation by governments around the world, including in the UK and including in NZ. Automatic is prohibited.
We could forget about what me, Wikipedia and legislation which has passed through parliament says and just use your definition though.
Any comment on the rest of my post?
Thought not, no intellectually reasonable stance to take on it.
John145 said:
Let's.
Any comment on the rest of my post?
Thought not, no intellectually reasonable stance to take on it.
Haha, you want an “intellectually reasonable” response that automatic firing rifles should be prohibited from civilian ownership. Any comment on the rest of my post?
Thought not, no intellectually reasonable stance to take on it.
You have had your response already, but you don’t seem to understand or believe it. To repeat, automatic firearms are banned for civilian use already.
Are you now referring to a different type of firearm which you think should be banned?
Edited by DurianIceCream on Sunday 24th March 00:36
j_4m said:
dvs_dave said:
Graph showing mass murder death tolls in the US during the Federal Assault Weapons Ban that was in place in the US from 1994-2004. The act essentially prohibited the manufacture, transfer and possession of semi-automatic assault weapons, and large capacity (10+ rounds) magazines. It expired in 2004 and efforts to reinstate it since have failed, essentially due to influence from the NRA.
Look at this and tell me with a straight face that you still don’t think there’s anything of significance here.
There is nothing remarkable about the period, it is not particularly distinct from the same period before and after, though things get pretty crazy post 2012.Look at this and tell me with a straight face that you still don’t think there’s anything of significance here.
What I find most interesting are the spikes that seem to happen at regular intervals. I haven’t got an explanation, but the graph really highlights it. Let’s also not forget that whilst mass shootings are tragedies they are statistically miniscule in the scheme of total deaths in the US.
In approximately 75% of all cases, the weapons were obtained legally.
The historical data paints a clear picture that the Assualt Weapon Ban reduced mass shooting death tolls.
dvs_dave said:
Here is that same graph but with the average mass shooting event death toll for the decades before, during, and after the Assualt Wespon Ban was in place. The correlation is pretty clear.
In approximately 75% of all cases, the weapons were obtained legally.
The historical data paints a clear picture that the Assualt Weapon Ban reduced mass shooting death tolls.
It isn’t clear from your graph if the blue bars are individual mass shootings, or totals for a particular year. In approximately 75% of all cases, the weapons were obtained legally.
The historical data paints a clear picture that the Assualt Weapon Ban reduced mass shooting death tolls.
In any case, the data appears any of incorrect, selective, or not correct without further information. The number of mass shootings and the deaths from mass shootings is inconsistent with the FBI definition of a ‘mass shooting’. In your graph , the lowest blue bar in your ban period appears to be about 6 deaths. The average deaths per mass shooting in your ban period is also 6. How can the average be the same than the smallest number.
You have just picked some graph to try to make a point, but there is no referenced data or explsinations behind your graphs. I could selectively quote data to show that owning a fully automatic firearm (there are specific cases in the US where these are in private hands) presents a lower public safety risk than people going berserk with a kitchen knife.
As for the firearms being obtained legally - of course they can be. That is because , unlike the rest of the dorks, there are only very limited instances in the US where obtaining a firearm is illegal as access to them is a constitutional right.
Semi-auto firearms are not the problem. Semi auto firearms have been around for a century. Frequent mass shootings are a modern phenomenon.
DurianIceCream said:
dvs_dave said:
Here is that same graph but with the average mass shooting event death toll for the decades before, during, and after the Assualt Wespon Ban was in place. The correlation is pretty clear.
In approximately 75% of all cases, the weapons were obtained legally.
The historical data paints a clear picture that the Assualt Weapon Ban reduced mass shooting death tolls.
It isn’t clear from your graph if the blue bars are individual mass shootings, or totals for a particular year. In approximately 75% of all cases, the weapons were obtained legally.
The historical data paints a clear picture that the Assualt Weapon Ban reduced mass shooting death tolls.
In any case, the data appears any of incorrect, selective, or not correct without further information. The number of mass shootings and the deaths from mass shootings is inconsistent with the FBI definition of a ‘mass shooting’. In your graph , the lowest blue bar in your ban period appears to be about 6 deaths. The average deaths per mass shooting in your ban period is also 6. How can the average be the same than the smallest number.
You have just picked some graph to try to make a point, but there is no referenced data or explsinations behind your graphs. I could selectively quote data to show that owning a fully automatic firearm (there are specific cases in the US where these are in private hands) presents a lower public safety risk than people going berserk with a kitchen knife.
As for the firearms being obtained legally - of course they can be. That is because , unlike the rest of the dorks, there are only very limited instances in the US where obtaining a firearm is illegal as access to them is a constitutional right.
Semi-auto firearms are not the problem. Semi auto firearms have been around for a century. Frequent mass shootings are a modern phenomenon.
As 75% of the weapons were obtained legally, that rather obviously points out that legislation has been effective at reducing mass murder death tolls. I.e the vast majority of mass shooting murderers are in compliance with the gun laws of the time.
Data source: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-...
DurianIceCream said:
Down and out said:
If you can't ban the guns because of constitutional issues, is banning bullets an option?
No. Unconstitutional.
Covered several times already in this thread.
dvs_dave said:
The blue bars are total fatalities per year from mass shootings (4 or more fatalities). The line is the average number of fatalities per mass shooting event over decade time periods in line with the decade the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (94-04) was in place.
As 75% of the weapons were obtained legally, that rather obviously points out that legislation has been effective at reducing mass murder death tolls. I.e the vast majority of mass shooting murderers are in compliance with the gun laws of the time.
Yes, I understood that the blue bars were fatalities and the line is an average. As 75% of the weapons were obtained legally, that rather obviously points out that legislation has been effective at reducing mass murder death tolls. I.e the vast majority of mass shooting murderers are in compliance with the gun laws of the time.
I just question their basic maths. Thee are a number of years where it looks like there are 6 deaths. This must be a single incident, because the definition of mass shooting used is 4 deaths. Yet the decade long average is 6. Unless there are some years with multiple instances of 4 people being killed, I can’t see how an average of 6 deaths per mass shooting occurs.
Your referenced article shows in the large majority, handguns were used. Not rifles.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff