Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
In 2015, so far there have been more mass shootings in the US than there have been days of the year. A mass shooting is one where four or more people are shot.
Mass shootings - some statistics
- Thread starter Warrigal
- Start date
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
According to the Mass Shooting tracker, not counting today's couple of mass shootings, the number of people killed in mass shootings in 2015 is 447 and the number wounded is 1,292.
Last year the numbers were 383 dead and 1,239 wounded. In 2013 it was 502 killed and 1,266.
That's a lot of people over three years and doesn't count all of the people killed or injured where the number is three or less in one incident.
Over the same time span Australia has had one mass shooting where a man in Cairns Qld killed his wife and three children before turning the gun on himself (2014) and in 2015 a mother killed her seven children with a knife plus one other child in her care at the time. Nothing reported in 2013.
Last year the numbers were 383 dead and 1,239 wounded. In 2013 it was 502 killed and 1,266.
That's a lot of people over three years and doesn't count all of the people killed or injured where the number is three or less in one incident.
Over the same time span Australia has had one mass shooting where a man in Cairns Qld killed his wife and three children before turning the gun on himself (2014) and in 2015 a mother killed her seven children with a knife plus one other child in her care at the time. Nothing reported in 2013.
Shalimar
SF VIP
- Location
- Vancouver Island Canada
I find it amazing that some Americans don't find it odd that other first world countries don't have this form of systemic violence.
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
Cultural blindness, I suspect.
One of our respected former politicians wants the Australian government to warn Aussies about the danger levels of visiting the USA, or at least some parts of it. The US has issued a warning to US travellers about visiting Sydney after the Paris shootings.
One of our respected former politicians wants the Australian government to warn Aussies about the danger levels of visiting the USA, or at least some parts of it. The US has issued a warning to US travellers about visiting Sydney after the Paris shootings.
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
Yes... Somehow the phrase... "Well regulated militia" got TWISTED (oops.. there's that word) into meaning "Unregulated (or loosely regulated) populace" Look where that has gotten us.. But on the other hand..it has done wonders for capitalism... look how much money the gun and ammo manufacturers are making... so they can continue to donate heftily to the NRA and to pro-gun candidates.
Jackie22
Well-known Member
- Location
- Northeast Texas
[h=1]A Lot of People Are Telling Congress to Repeal Its Gag Order on Gun Violence Research[/h]http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/pressure-builds-gun-research-congress
Even before today's tragic shooting in San Bernardino, pressure was building in Washington to overturn an amendment, backed by the National Rifle Association, that has barred federal research on gun violence for nearly 20 years. More than 2,000 physicians, dozens of Democratic lawmakers, and even the author of the amendment have all called on Congress to once again allow gun violence to be investigated as a public health issue.
On Wednesday, nine medical associations publicly urged Congress to overturn the so-called Dickey Amendment, which in 1996 effectively halted research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) into the causes of gun violence.
"Gun violence is a public health problem that kills 90 Americans a day," Dr. Alice Chen, the executive director of Doctors for America, said in a statement. "Physicians believe it’s time to lift this effective ban and fund the research needed to save lives."
Tacked onto a 1996 appropriations bill, the Dickey Amendment was pushed through Congress by Republican legislators under substantial pressure from the NRA, as the amendment’s author, former Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.), admitted in a 2012 op-ed in the Washington Post that he co-authored. Dickey wrote that the lack of research by the NIH and the CDC had resulted in a troubling information gap: "US scientists cannot answer the most basic question: What works to prevent firearm injuries? We don’t know whether having more citizens carry guns would decrease or increase firearm deaths; or whether firearm registration and licensing would make inner-city residents safer or expose them to greater harm."
Even before today's tragic shooting in San Bernardino, pressure was building in Washington to overturn an amendment, backed by the National Rifle Association, that has barred federal research on gun violence for nearly 20 years. More than 2,000 physicians, dozens of Democratic lawmakers, and even the author of the amendment have all called on Congress to once again allow gun violence to be investigated as a public health issue.
On Wednesday, nine medical associations publicly urged Congress to overturn the so-called Dickey Amendment, which in 1996 effectively halted research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) into the causes of gun violence.
"Gun violence is a public health problem that kills 90 Americans a day," Dr. Alice Chen, the executive director of Doctors for America, said in a statement. "Physicians believe it’s time to lift this effective ban and fund the research needed to save lives."
Tacked onto a 1996 appropriations bill, the Dickey Amendment was pushed through Congress by Republican legislators under substantial pressure from the NRA, as the amendment’s author, former Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.), admitted in a 2012 op-ed in the Washington Post that he co-authored. Dickey wrote that the lack of research by the NIH and the CDC had resulted in a troubling information gap: "US scientists cannot answer the most basic question: What works to prevent firearm injuries? We don’t know whether having more citizens carry guns would decrease or increase firearm deaths; or whether firearm registration and licensing would make inner-city residents safer or expose them to greater harm."
I wonder what is different in Switzerland as they issue guns to their people and have much less killings than in the US. I think we really need to know what is going on other than the 'gun haters' want us to stop having guns.
Who were these two shooters that brought so much harm to the people of the US? They were raised as foreigners before they moved to the US. Might be something we need to look into. We still do not have all the investigation finished or released. So we just dream up a bunch of nonsense and say those are the facts.
Who were these folks anyway? Did they have gun permits? What was their purpose if they did not have gun permits. I was just listening to authorities answering press questions and many went unanswered so we still don't know all we should about the shooters and why and how they did this thing.
Who were these two shooters that brought so much harm to the people of the US? They were raised as foreigners before they moved to the US. Might be something we need to look into. We still do not have all the investigation finished or released. So we just dream up a bunch of nonsense and say those are the facts.
Who were these folks anyway? Did they have gun permits? What was their purpose if they did not have gun permits. I was just listening to authorities answering press questions and many went unanswered so we still don't know all we should about the shooters and why and how they did this thing.
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
Bob, Farook was American born, and as such he had the constitutional right to own as many firearms and ammunition as he wanted. He had no criminal convictions and was not on the radar of national security. He could acquire his arsenal over time by travelling around the country to buy them legally or are you suggesting that he either stole them or smuggled them into the country?
What he has done can be done by any American with a mind to do so.
Bob, in 2014, Americans owned guns at the rate of 112.6 per 100 civilians and Switzerland had 45.7, less than half the rate of the US. Australians has 21.7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
In 2013, the US had 10.5 firearms related deaths per 100,000 population, compared to Switzerland 2.91 and Australia 0.86. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
These figures do seem to roughly correlate to the number of guns per 100 civilians.
What he has done can be done by any American with a mind to do so.
Bob, in 2014, Americans owned guns at the rate of 112.6 per 100 civilians and Switzerland had 45.7, less than half the rate of the US. Australians has 21.7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
In 2013, the US had 10.5 firearms related deaths per 100,000 population, compared to Switzerland 2.91 and Australia 0.86. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
These figures do seem to roughly correlate to the number of guns per 100 civilians.
Jackie22
Well-known Member
- Location
- Northeast Texas
| [h=1]Republicans say no to new gun control legislation after San Bernardino[/h]Source: USA Today WASHINGTON — Republicans in Congress made it clear Thursday that they will not be moving quickly to bring up new gun control legislation in the wake of Wednesday's shootings in San Bernardino, Calif. Speaker Paul Ryan said Thursday there are still too many unknowns about the San Bernardino shootings, but he said one common theme among many mass shootings is mental illness, an issue he says Congress has already been working on with legislation. "People with mental illness are getting guns and committing these mass shootings," Ryan said on CBS This Morning. Ryan made the same point earlier this week in reaction to the post-Thanksgiving shooting at a Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic. The Wisconsin Republican said part of the discussion surrounding mental health legislation is who should and shouldn't have access to guns, but he signaled that barring gun purchases by people on no-fly terror lists — as President Obama urged Wednesday — is not an option. <more> Read more:http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...an-urges-caution-on-gun-legislation/76714608/ .......how can they justify people on 'no-fly terror list' buying guns? ....unreal. |
"Gun violence is a public health problem that kills 90 Americans a day," Dr. Alice Chen, the executive director of Doctors for America, said in a statement. "Physicians believe it’s time to lift this effective ban and fund the research needed to save lives."
If this were true we would be burying 90X365=32,850 people for gun deaths per year. A not so smart comment.
Warrigal you posted - Last year the numbers were 383 dead and 1,239 wounded. In 2013 it was 502 killed and 1,266.
Some one has really got their figures all messed up. All this nonsense and crap about killings should be stopped and final figures used. No time to wait for the inspectors to come up with some real numbers before all this anti gun nonsense is used? Rather ignorant of facts and a hate for the facts makes no sense at all.
Good some of you folks will never own a gun voluntarily or because there is no problem. You might just blow your own heads off. Want to end the gun laws, then get your congressman to get the debate going. You out of country folks just have no one to turn too.
More statistics on mass shootings in the US and Europe for anyone interested. More here.
1) In his address to the nation after the Charleston attack, Obama claimed: “we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency.”
Senator Harry Reid made a similar statement on June 23rd: “The United States is the only advanced country where this type of mass violence occurs. Let’s do something. We can expand, for example, background checks. … We should support not giving guns to people who are mentally ill and felons.”
This claim is simply not true. 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.
The focus on excluding shootings that do not involve other crimes (e.g., gang fights or robberies) has been used from the original research by Lott and Landes to more recently the FBI) from 2009 to the Charleston massacre (this matches the starting period for another recent study we did on US shootings and we chose that because that was the starting point that Bloomberg’s group had picked). The cases were complied doing a news search. The starting year was picked simply because it match a report the time frame from a recent Bloomberg report and when we evaluated that report it was the last year we looked at Mass Public Shootings in the US starting in 2009.
Some people have defended President Obama’s statement by pointing to the word “frequency.” But, even if one puts it in terms of frequency, the president’s statement is still false, with the US ranking 9th compared to European countries.
The CPRC has also collected data on the worst mass public shootings, those cases where at least 15 people were killed in the attack.
There were 16 cases where at least 15 people were killed. Out of those cases, four were in the United States, two in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom.
But the U.S. has a population four times greater than Germany’s and five times the U.K.’s, so on a per-capita basis the U.S. ranks low in comparison — actually, those two countries would have had a frequency of attacks 1.96 (Germany) and 2.46 (UK) times higher.
Small countries such as Norway, Israel and Australia may have only one major attack each, one-fourth of what the U.S. has suffered, but the US population is vastly greater. If they suffered attacks at a rate adjusted for their population, Norway, Israel and Australia would have had attacks that were respectively 16, 11, and 3 times greater than the US.
1) In his address to the nation after the Charleston attack, Obama claimed: “we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency.”
Senator Harry Reid made a similar statement on June 23rd: “The United States is the only advanced country where this type of mass violence occurs. Let’s do something. We can expand, for example, background checks. … We should support not giving guns to people who are mentally ill and felons.”
This claim is simply not true. 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.
The focus on excluding shootings that do not involve other crimes (e.g., gang fights or robberies) has been used from the original research by Lott and Landes to more recently the FBI) from 2009 to the Charleston massacre (this matches the starting period for another recent study we did on US shootings and we chose that because that was the starting point that Bloomberg’s group had picked). The cases were complied doing a news search. The starting year was picked simply because it match a report the time frame from a recent Bloomberg report and when we evaluated that report it was the last year we looked at Mass Public Shootings in the US starting in 2009.
Some people have defended President Obama’s statement by pointing to the word “frequency.” But, even if one puts it in terms of frequency, the president’s statement is still false, with the US ranking 9th compared to European countries.
The CPRC has also collected data on the worst mass public shootings, those cases where at least 15 people were killed in the attack.
There were 16 cases where at least 15 people were killed. Out of those cases, four were in the United States, two in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom.
But the U.S. has a population four times greater than Germany’s and five times the U.K.’s, so on a per-capita basis the U.S. ranks low in comparison — actually, those two countries would have had a frequency of attacks 1.96 (Germany) and 2.46 (UK) times higher.
Small countries such as Norway, Israel and Australia may have only one major attack each, one-fourth of what the U.S. has suffered, but the US population is vastly greater. If they suffered attacks at a rate adjusted for their population, Norway, Israel and Australia would have had attacks that were respectively 16, 11, and 3 times greater than the US.
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
All these charts... grafts and statistics are a huge waste of time... Pro-gun people.. rest assured that the current crop of politicians are stuck firmly in the NRA's pocket and will do NOTHING to endanger your right to arm yourselves to the teeth. SO... why don't we all just sit back and enjoy our evening... the next MASS shooting is perhaps only a week or so away..maybe even sooner...... that you can rest assured of too.
Blaming the NRA which seems to one of the favorite tools of entire anti-gun movement insults the average gun owner or even public because it could be interpreted to mean gun owners are sheep following the NRA and/or not smart enough to make their own decisions. The gun sales post high profile shooting sky rocket in part because the anti gun rhetoric comes out right away. I've never seen an NRA ad suggesting you better get a gun now before it's too late post high profile shooting. The same can be said of "big pharma" which also gets smacked for their lobbying. The drugs sell in part because people want them or what they supposedly do, there has to be a demand before there is something to fill it. It's easier to blame some big nefarious organization when in fact there is a lot of personal responsibility or desire for the very things that are supposedly someone's else's fault.
In response to a previous post, today at 5:55pm by QS. Why should we shut up when you folks are constantly screaming about our allowing folks to own guns? It is a two way street and we have as much right to say buy a gun if you pass the screening and any that does not want to buy a gun can do that without passing the screening.
That's right. But the NRA, that oh so evil organization usually doesn't publicly speak until some actual anti gun legislation is introduced(sometimes rather quickly) showing some restraint giving some time to pass unlike social media, politicos or so called mainstream media turning an incomplete on going event into a political debate stage.
Well said WhatInThe, I agree. But in the case of Big Pharma, most of the mass shootings so far in the US have been done by people who were under the influence of prescription pharmaceuticals which were mind altering and had side effects of tendencies to commit homicides or suicides. I don't blame the NRA for anything, but prescription drugs that alter people's ability to think clearly should be taken off the market, definitely not given to children and teens which is the case in many of these mentally disturbed individuals who commit such crimes.
I don't know what makes me cringe more. Hearing of another senseless mass shooting, or listening to the anti-gun people, including the President, jump on each opportunity to promote their agenda.
Warrigal
SF VIP
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
Those figures were just for people killed or injured in mass shootings - i.e. 4 or more victims at the one time.
The other figures no doubt take into account intentional homicides, suicides and accidental deaths.
They would include gang slayings and domestic violence murders and children shooting other children with their parents' guns.
Here are some figures concerning total gun related deaths in America from 1999 to 2013 http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
There is a lot more information at the above link and you can generate charts and comparisons between any two or more countries.
For example
QuickSilver
SF VIP
- Location
- Midwest
The only "agenda" we "jump" on is trying to prevent "another senseless mass shooting".. So... why is that cringe worthy to you?
Other Food for Thought
Given the extremely high number of firearms being continuously purchased here, as I pointed out in another thread, 900,000 background checks in a single week, obviously many more "new gun owners" are being enabled, as well as more guns purchased by seasoned owners, MANY more guns entering the mix continuously.
Yet, the stats show number of firearms deaths per capita as CONSTANT at 10 per 100,000 population for the PAST 12 or more years.
Who can therefore PROVE that more guns = more deaths? imp
Given the extremely high number of firearms being continuously purchased here, as I pointed out in another thread, 900,000 background checks in a single week, obviously many more "new gun owners" are being enabled, as well as more guns purchased by seasoned owners, MANY more guns entering the mix continuously.
Yet, the stats show number of firearms deaths per capita as CONSTANT at 10 per 100,000 population for the PAST 12 or more years.
Who can therefore PROVE that more guns = more deaths? imp
No, because if you really wanted to prevent another senseless shooting, you would try to do something about the medication madness in America, and acknowledge that many of these shootings are done either by mentally ill people, or people who are so needlessly over-medicated since childhood on mind altering drugs like Ritalin, Xanax, etc., that they become mentally ill, and are either homicidal or suicidal.
What makes me cringe is seeing each and every time that rather than examine the details and try to understand the motivation of a shooting and the background of the shooter to try to avoid another mass shooting, the immediate response is to blame the guns themselves. It appears that some people are happy to see yet another mass shooting, another chance to push their anti-gun agenda to the public.
Also, to ignore each and every time that these shooting take place in gun-free zones, where people are like sitting ducks and these psychos know that. Even since military bases have gone gun-free, they've been hit by these mentally ill killers. If people wanted to avoid another shooting on a military base, they would allow our men and women to carry if they chose to, who better trained to use their weapons effectively than our troops.