Seems Like There's A Mass Shooting Almost Every Day!
- Thread starter OneEyedDiva
- Start date
Austin, Texas, among many other cities tried defunding and look t what happened. Crime rate up faster than their population growth. Other large cities also defunded, I mean they actually took money away from police budgets and in everyone that I just finished looking at here online, the city's crime rate went up, including rapes and murders. New York City cut $1bil from the police budget, lost cops, crime rate is up, way up and so it goes in most major cities. Defund actually means defund. Neither new York or Chicago can hire officers because no one shows up for the interview. BTW, murders in Austin are up 200% this year.
https://www.kvue.com/article/news/i...owth/269-4bf6284e-6c23-45b4-9fdf-1f8328d30b64
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/nyregion/nypd-budget.html
Don M.
SF VIP
- Location
- central Missouri
The ONLY ones who have "profited" from these Anti Police movements are the criminals and street gangs. The "war zones" in most of our major cities are growing rapidly. It's no wonder that gun and ammunition sales are soaring....as more and more people are deciding that they may have to protect themselves.
JimBob1952
Senior Member
One interesting fact about "mass shootings". There has been an upsurge in mass shootings ever since various groups (often involved in gun-control advocacy) started establishing their own definitions of what a mass shooting is.
For example, Mother Jones magazine defines a mass shooting as an incident that takes place in public, resulting in at least three people fatally injured, not including the shooter. There were 10 such events in 2019. But the Gun Violence Archive defines a mass shooting as one that takes place anywhere, with four people fatally or non-fatally injured, excluding the shooter. There were 418 such events in 2019.
So if you look at one set of metrics, you see an explosion of mass shootings; if you look at another, you see a fairly limited if horrible phenomenon. Who's right?
This is from a RAND Corporation report:
There is no standard definition of what constitutes a mass shooting, and different data sources—such as media outlets, academic researchers, and law enforcement agencies—frequently use different definitions when discussing and analyzing mass shootings. For instance, when various organizations measure and report on mass shootings, the criteria they use in counting such events might differ by the minimum threshold for the number of victims, whether the victim count includes those who were not fatally injured, where the shooting occurred, whether the shooting occurred in connection to another crime, and the relationship between the shooter and the victims. These inconsistencies lead to different assessments of how frequently mass shootings occur and whether they are more common now than they were a decade or two ago.
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/mass-shootings.html
Just as an aside, I'm not a gun owner and I don't care much whether the government takes my guns away, since I don't have any. I'm just pointing out that this is like a lot of other discussions, with a lot of misinformation flying about. (And the NRA and other gun advocates are equally guilty, if not more so.)
For example, Mother Jones magazine defines a mass shooting as an incident that takes place in public, resulting in at least three people fatally injured, not including the shooter. There were 10 such events in 2019. But the Gun Violence Archive defines a mass shooting as one that takes place anywhere, with four people fatally or non-fatally injured, excluding the shooter. There were 418 such events in 2019.
So if you look at one set of metrics, you see an explosion of mass shootings; if you look at another, you see a fairly limited if horrible phenomenon. Who's right?
This is from a RAND Corporation report:
There is no standard definition of what constitutes a mass shooting, and different data sources—such as media outlets, academic researchers, and law enforcement agencies—frequently use different definitions when discussing and analyzing mass shootings. For instance, when various organizations measure and report on mass shootings, the criteria they use in counting such events might differ by the minimum threshold for the number of victims, whether the victim count includes those who were not fatally injured, where the shooting occurred, whether the shooting occurred in connection to another crime, and the relationship between the shooter and the victims. These inconsistencies lead to different assessments of how frequently mass shootings occur and whether they are more common now than they were a decade or two ago.
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/mass-shootings.html
Just as an aside, I'm not a gun owner and I don't care much whether the government takes my guns away, since I don't have any. I'm just pointing out that this is like a lot of other discussions, with a lot of misinformation flying about. (And the NRA and other gun advocates are equally guilty, if not more so.)
Verisure
Senior Member
It would be really great if the US would introduce Democracy and then no one will need to resort to a gun.
Verisure
Senior Member
"Nuclear families" in the US often drug together, shoot together and are destitute together so that is definitely not "the single most important reason".
You might consider not leaving it in the truck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutherland_Springs_church_shooting
Verisure
Senior Member
Noah couldn't have built an ark without a hammer and Americans can't go on their daily shooting sprees without guns. Guns in the hands of Americans is like matches in the hands of children.
Verisure
Senior Member
Exactly.Timberview Tx. 4 injured.
Verisure
Senior Member
The same three words that I'm sick of:
1. Conversation, as in: The Democrats and Republicans have avoided bilateral conversations on how to fix the nation.
2. Community, as in: the black/white/Hispanic/Asian community is dissatisfied with the political situation.
3. Research, as in: Experts have been called in to research the causes of failures that other experts have implemented.
senior chef
Senior Member
I most strongly disagree.
When children grow up without a strong male presence, they too often literally run wild.
A woman CAN do the job, BUT she must be one tough cookie.
My sister successfully raised 3 boys by herself. 2 of them graduated from college and are gainfully employed. The 3rd boy joined the U.S. Coast Guard.
A close female friend of mine raised her boy by herself, sans strong male.
Unfortunately she was waaaay too lax with discipline. The result ? A boy who grew up to become a heroin addict.
Many times, a mother who is the sole support, simply can not keep an eye on her children 24/7. The result ? Children who get into trouble with street kids. 1st, minor drug experimentation. Then harder drugs. Drugs and guns go together, hand in hand.
You are not safe in church, considering how many mass shootings there have been in places of worship in the US.
JimBob1952
Senior Member
You don't know anything about the US and your posts reflect that. Ignorance combined with arrogance is an unstoppable combination.
Uptosnuff
Member
- Location
- Great Plains, USA
The perpetrators of these mass shootings are obviously not thinking rationally. I wonder if some of this is due to meds these people are on. I have seen first hand the terrible behavior changes that some of these meds produce. I know a young woman that started taking anti-seizure medications and gradually she went from a quiet, friendly person to one that had explosive anger issues that she acted out so much that every person that knew her was talking about it. Finally, she quit taking the medication and is now back to who she was before.
This may have nothing to do with the problem, but it certainly makes me wonder.
This may have nothing to do with the problem, but it certainly makes me wonder.
JimBob1952
Senior Member
Most of the recent mass shootings involve black teenagers opening fire more or less at random in gang-related events. So, unlikely that meds are involved. As to some of the other events, well, meds may be to blame. Sometimes it's mental illness, sometimes it's a brain tumor. Sometimes I'm afraid it's just pure evil.
Almost every young school shooter is on Prozac or some similar antidepressant. Along with Ritalin, they are prescribed like Skittles. There is a reason they come with warnings about causing homicide or suicide.
My nephew's doctor put him on Paxil & some other drug to "Help him deal with his parent's divorce." Really messed up his head; I'll have nothing to do with him.
Verisure
Senior Member
Arrogance has nothing to do with my response that you have just now quoted. What you've just said (if I put it into simple terms) is that the only reason you say I am ignorant and know nothing about the US is that you disagree with me. Your reply isn't motivated in the slightest. This is what you consider "debate". Would you care to qualify your above statements or are you going to chicken out?
Verisure
Senior Member
Sorry, but you seem to know nothing about the US. Being black, or a gang member, or meds or mental illness, or evil are not the basis for mass shootings but merely the consequences of the feelings of helplessness in a nation of ridicule by the flaunting, advantaged rich.
OneEyedDiva
SF VIP
- Location
- New Jersey
I think there's more to it than that. Which police departments were defunded and where have many mass shootings occurred? Many mass shootings were by people from middle class families and neighborhoods...places where such occurrences "couldn't happen". Many other killings were in areas no doubt with reduced police presence as you stated. This article gives statistics on mass murders based on the category of crime and perpetrators by race. The text beyond the stats is very interesting, but not surprising.
https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/who-are-mass-shooters-mass-shooter-demographics-part-2/
@bowmore I can't believe there were people who actually believed the Sandy Hook shooting was staged! What a slap in the face to those parents who lost children and everyone else who was affected. I'm glad Jones lost the case.
You are right, but out of respect for the Lord, I have decided to take my chances.
There are no guarantees that a shooter won't show up in my church, however, after being a member of the same church for over 50 years, I know who belongs there and who don't. From time to time, there will be a visitor that comes into the church and yes, in some situations, it does draw my interest enough to keep an eye on that individual.
In the post that win231 reported regarding the shooting inside Sutherland Springs First Baptist Church, after reading the story, it's pretty evident that many people dropped the ball in that case from the Air Force to the Sheriff's Office. That was a terrible thing that happened and is only one of a few other church shootings. It seems to me that mass shooters go where they know there will be several people in attendance, including places like nightclubs.
Within minutes after the shootings, the shooter is already stating to his wife and his parents that he was sorry for the shootings. You have to believe that this man was crazy, like insane. He is admitting that he knew what he did was wrong and now wants to be forgiven because he realizes that he is about to die. Had the NRA instructor not been in attendance, it's hard to say how many others would have been killed.
Last edited:
Verisure
Senior Member
The reason is often simple but it's made to look complicated by an intentional labyrinth of red herrings, scapegoats & patsies. That's why the perpetrators of really big crimes seldom get punished.
What cases would that be?