Reader PeakTrader writes:
Mass shootings peaked when Bill Clinton assualted women in the ‘90s.
When such assertions are made, it is usually useful to refer to data. I do not see a peak in 1992-2000. I see a peak right now.
Figure 1: Mass shooting count. February observation for data through 2/14. Light green shading denotes Clinton administration. Orange shading denotes 2017 onward. Source: Mother Jones, news accounts for 2/14, and author’s calculations.
Figure 2: Mass shooting fatalities (red), and injured (pink). February observation for data through 2/14. Light green shading denotes Clinton administration. Orange shading denotes 2017 onward. Source: Mother Jones, news accounts for 2/14, and author’s calculations.
According to this link, which I posted to support my comment, mass shootings peaked in the ‘90s:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.globalresearch.ca/mass-shootings-in-america-a-historical-review/5355990/amp
I agree, the 2010s decade will be the worst, given updated info.
i don’t think “will be the worst” is the correct statement. the 2010’s are the worst decade.
Once again you have to go back 5 years to find some right wing spin. Nothing current? Peaky – 2slug says you do this a lot. In other words, we are all onto your intellectual garbage.
It was a local peak, since mass shootings fell the next decade.
However, my comment was an appropriate response to your ridiculous comment – the self proclaimed liberal – who blames gun assaults on right wing racist nuts, and seems gleeful about it.
And, I didn’t hide the date or change the data. You’re the one spinning and with “intellectual garbage.”
“I didn’t hide the date or change the data.”
Oh yea – like anyone else did that. Seriously? One can misrepresent in so many different ways as you do routinely.
pgl It’s actually the very same link that he posted earlier. He just recycles old links he got from his masters in Moscow.
A violent nation.
“Mass shootings peaked when Bill Clinton assaulted women in the ‘90s.”
Rather the key to the violent America was Clinton deciding to break up Serbia, to move NATO east and expand liberal empire. Permanent war, bipartisan!
How many mass casualty events have the US perpetrated on the Muslim world since the strong on defense democrats joined the neocons?
Drones are the weapon of choice but at home the novices use guns……………………….
While it did cause the Japanese to pause concerned with an armed American “behind each blade of grass:.
The Romans had the gladiator US are entertained by nuts with assault rifles.
Bread and Columbine redos!
PeekabooTrader, you’re impervious to facts while pretending to take them seriously. The problem is not even with the article you posted. Or as some would say, “you’re not even wrong, you’re clueless”.
Curiously, the Global Research site you linked, Peak, is not internally consistent.
The graphic does indeed suggest that the Clinton years were the most prone to mass shootings, However, on the detailed list on the Global Research site, the incidents listed are consistent with the Mother Jones list, which does not support the Clinton thesis.
For example, in the 2000s, Mother Jones has 20 mass shootings, while the GR graphic shows 28.
In the 1990s, the GR graphic shows 42 shootings, while Mother Jones shows 23. The GR website essentially lists the Mother Jones list. Thus, the graphic is not aligned with the individual event descriptions farther down on the same page.
I’d further note that the Mother Jones database itself originates from 2012, and it’s far from clear that the list prior to, say, 2000, is comprehensive. A quick check into the 1980s suggests that it is not. I would therefore caution using the Mother Jones’ database as an audited database. I think it is fairer to consider it just a list, at least for the period prior to 2012. Indeed, Mother Jones includes this note: “The interactive map below and our downloadable database have been expanded with 35 additional cases from 2013-2018.” I think this means that the database was increased retroactively, ie, they didn’t catch all the cases first time even in the 2013-2018 period. In such an event, it is likely — indeed, probable — that numbers from the 1980s and 1990s are undercounts. Or perhaps it means something else.
We can to an extent control for detection bias by considering just larger events — which are more likely to be covered by national media. If I set the filter at 7 deaths or more, the frequency is still increasing, with 7 in the 1990s, 11 in the 2000s, and 16 in the not yet finished 2010s. There is no question that the 2010s have been a bad decade for mass shootings.
One might wonder whether the Great Recession had something to do with these elevated numbers, as mental health issues are highly correlated to mass shootings, and depressions tend to make people…depressed. As it turns out, to the extent we can trust the GR site, the 1930s and 1940s also showed local peaks in mass shootings. So perhaps the economy has something to do with it. Be that as it may, it has been a particularly bad stretch.
Holding the king of trolling accountable by contrasting his spin to the real world. So UNFAIR!
50% of all guns in the U.S. are owned by 3% of Americans. And 19% of Americans own the other 50%. Most of those guns are owned by white men. Funny how this small minority seems to run the country.
11,000 people were murdered by guns in the U.S last year. 26 were killed by guns in England and Wales last year (equivalent to 150 if adjusted for population).
The police in the UK fired their weapons a total of 7 times last year.
The U.S. is one really sick, violent, gun obsessed society.
So, white people own most of the guns and most of the shooting victims are minorities – it must be white people are killing minorities, but we know that’s not true – minorities are killing minorities.
Racist garbage. You had your 15 minutes of fame and how do you abuse it? Serving some White Nationalist agenda naturally.
February 2018:
“High quality telephone polls from Gallup and the Pew Research Center in 2017 found that 42% of people in the US live in households with guns.”
Joseph, where did you get such erroneous data, and you believed it?? What is amazing is the terms used “owned” instead of the more important “access”, and indicating individual ownership versus household. Households are important since it is there where “access” starts. Your numbers would indicate that ~23% of Americans own guns. Doing the most basic search finds, but a search tells us this: “1. We don’t know how many people own guns
There is no countrywide database where people register whether they own guns (the law doesn’t allow it)….” 23% may be correct, but is a meaningless number.
And this surprised me: “People in urban areas are more likely to own guns than those in rural areas.”
There’s more. Read it for yourself: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/msn/theres-a-gun-for-every-american-less-than-13-own-guns/ar-BBJbDAK
The study that joseph was referencing was done by Harvard and Northeastern universities and was reviewed by Duke University:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/19/us-gun-ownership-survey
A somewhat different picture emerges when one looks at total Homicide rates per million people. Circa 2010 or so, 98 countries had a higher Homicide rate than the US:
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate-per-million-people
The US, at 42.1 per million, was still higher than the UK, at 11.68 per million, with 156 countries having a higher homicide rate than the UK.
However, when one looks at total crime rates, the ratio flips, with the total UK crime rate being about three time that of the US, although the info is a little dated:
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes-per-1000
In addition, it appears that the violent crime rate in the UK is higher than the US, although there is some dispute over the exact numbers:
http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/
So, the homicide rate in the US is higher than the UK, but it would appear that one is much more likely to be a victim of both total crime and of violent crime in the UK, versus the US.
The U.S. Murder Rate Is Up But Still Far Below Its 1980 Peak
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-u-s-murder-rate-is-up-but-still-far-below-its-1980-peak/
And yet, adjusted for US population, mass killings amounted to 197 in the UK, versus 127 in the US.
in 2017
When “EconbrowserMedia” reached out to PeakIgnorance about his infatuation with archaic data, we originally could get no response. Later in the day PeakIgnorance’s official spokeswoman “ChunkyEnablerHuckabee’sDividend” referred us to this short video tape:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vqpzk-qGxMU
Menzie, I’m curious as to the “Orange shading denotes 2017 onward” you’re recently fond of.
e.g.:
the above &
https://econbrowser.com/archives/2018/02/cumulative-mass-shooting-casualties-as-of-2-14-2018
whereas you don’t seem to denote particular years in prior posts on mass shootings
e.g.:
https://econbrowser.com/archives/2017/10/mass-shooting-casualties-in-america-as-of-october-2
https://econbrowser.com/archives/2015/12/mass-shooting-casualties-by-religion-of-perpetrator-muslim-vs-non-muslim
https://econbrowser.com/archives/2016/06/mass-shooting-casualties-by-religion-of-perpetrator-muslim-vs-non-muslim-updated
https://econbrowser.com/archives/2016/02/mass-shootings-trending-up-again
https://econbrowser.com/archives/2016/03/mass-shooting-statistics-3316
What is the significance of 2017-onward in your recent posts? The only thing I can think of would be this https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/40/text?overview=closed&r=1 from late-Feb 2017. If so, it may be beneficial if you included other significant legislation in your “analyses” of these unfortunate events. Whatever it is you’re attempting to denote, it may be smart to elucidate it to your audience as any good analyst would do. I mean, you already have the x-axis clearly marked as an annual time series & picking any single year isn’t at all difficult.
rtd: In a previous post, you thanked me for showing 2017 as shaded. And I politely said you are welcome. Have your views changed on denoting 2017 onward?
@Menzie, regarding “rtd” comment and aesthetic sensibilities of visual data
Some oddballs (sickos) think the most important thing about Menzie’s bar charts above is that they show America has a serious problem, and that problem is getting progressively worse. ……..AND that maybe we as citizens and lawmakers should DO something about it
However, “rtd” has me thinking deeply……
Personally, I’ve always liked metallic kelly green on cars and chicks that wear hot pink. I also like chicks that spray midnight blue dye on their forehead bangs and wear chokers. To be honest I’m highly offended and I feel personally violated by the fact that this Uma Thurman interview isn’t embedded in EVERY graph Menzie does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yev8Ft-rvYA
I think Menzie at least owes me an apology for that last part. PLUS, I think Menzie should truncate the right side of the video so we can’t see Conan O’Brien and create a word balloon that pops up over Uma’s head every 4 seconds saying “Moses, this dress is for YOU!!!”.
OK?? See if you can work on that Menzie. Come on, do a Bro a “solid”.
Moses Herzog,
I mostly agree with
“the most important thing about Menzie’s bar charts above is that they show America has a serious problem, and that problem is getting progressively worse. ……..AND that maybe we as citizens and lawmakers should DO something about it”
but I haven’t the slightest what you’re saying thereafter. Help me out on that Moses. Come on, do a Bro a “solid”.
often my humor is lost on people. It was probably lost on Menzie as well, don’t mind it.
I couldn’t tell you if my views have changed as I’m not certain what it is you’re referencing… you’d have to point me to this instance (which you typically are ready to do) as obviously context matters.
rtd: By email address provided and IP, this comment looks like yours (February 1, 2018, 5:59PM Pacific).
In this comment, I write (February 1, 2018, 6:12PM Pacific):
Please feel free to dispute the content of this exchange, since you are having difficulty recalling it.
hahahaha – I again thoroughly appreciate the entertainment. Your reading comprehension is still lacking if you’re unable to tell that prior comment was made ironically. So, to answer your question… “no, my views have not changed on denoting 2017 onward” as my view on this post is that it is silly to shade an area in the fashion above. Now if there were breaks in the shading (akin to graph #1 in this post but really you should denote all administrations) or if we were informed why the shading is supposedly important, it wouldn’t be completely silly.
So, are you going to inform your readers as to why 2017-onwards is important as it relates to these events? I don’t know why you’re being so secretive.
Also, yes, that was a comment I made, but I’d be cautious in putting too much faith into email and/or IP address for id purposes… you’d be prudent to think hard about that one. hahahaha
rtd: Well, I did understand the sarcastic (too banal to be ironic in my opinion) comment. But for you, I am going to make default on graphs orange denoting 2017M01 onward. Thanks for the suggestion.
@rtd
"rtd", I'd be curious to know what you consider "ironic" about the statement you made.
“I’m not certain what it is you’re referencing… you’d have to point me to this instance.”
It looks like a flat question you asked, in reference to a FALSE statement. That like most Republicans, when you’re shown up as a hypocrite, you want to change the goal posts.
Menzie called you out for what you are, and Menzie is/was nice enough not to call you a blatant liar. I can tell you Menzie is a much classier and tolerant person than I am, as if I had your IP, and you “couldn’t remember” your own comment posts and then told me “your reading comprehension is lacking” after I called you out for what you are, you’d be gone from this blog.
Menzie,
You say “banal”, huh? It was so “banal” that you felt intrigued to reference it. You make this far too easy, Menzie. hahahaha
I don’t understand what you mean by “But for you, I am going to make default on graphs orange denoting 2017M01 onward.” How is this for me and why do you think I would care? I was merely curious why you wouldn’t label and/or explain something in your “analysis” that you apparently felt the need to explicitly display in your graph yet w/o explanation. Seemed strange. In any case, I’m glad I continue to inspire you.
Moses Herzog,
You seem confused, the initial comment made in irony was a prior comment of mine that Menzie noted.
I don’t know what you’re referencing as a “FALSE statement” or how I was “shown up as a hypocrite”. What did I lie about? Also, I’m not a Republican. Also, I appreciate that you think I can remember every single comment from this blog, but I can’t. Memory is different from reading comprehension and Menzie’s reading comprehension (lack of) skill is well documented.
While there is no doubt that the number of instances and the number of casualties has risen, one must put it in the larger perspective of homicides over the past 35 years. These are horrible events, but statistically they are anomalies. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf . Focusing on the occasional, random actions of madmen and putting enormous time and resources toward that makes little sense, even if it feels satisfying.
What would background checks have done for the nut that shot up Las Vegas? As for school that are being targeted, Ohio and other states are recognizing the need for first line defenders. There are those who are philosophically opposed to being near guns. And then there are those who will step up to protect them if necessary.
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/local/guns-schools-mad-river-schools-trains-staff-shoot-intruders/QeYJVCyTxtSwJMuvQHBdII/
http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article595097.html
http://abcnews.go.com/US/utah-teachers-flock-gun-training/story?id=18075985
@Bruce Hall – “statistical anomalies?” You link to a 2011 paper from the DOJ which of course will not have data from the last 7 or so years. Your attempt to trivialize tragedies such as shootings in Florida (2 major ones), Las Vegas, etc. is too sad. You then try to double down by saying we need to bulk up first line defenders. Of course we can turn all schools into locked zones with police presence; maybe that is what you are aiming at. Meanwhile, there this a wealth of information/data from foreign countries where there is reasonable gun control and their deaths by shooting are way lower than in the USA.
I’ve been an occasional hunter over the years and believe that people have a “reasonable” right to own firearms (even Justice Scalia said in his famous writing in the Heller case that there is a role for regulation as long as the fundamental 2nd amendment write was not abrogated). I fail to see how an AK-47 or similar weapons have any place in the homes of Americans. they are not designed for hunting but as the military has shown as so well, they are highly useful in killing people.
Alan, the link I provided was not to “trivialize” mass shooting, but to place them in the larger context of homicides. The link went back to 1980 so a large period of time nin question the data for total homicides was shown… enough to establish a reasonable baseline. Unfortunately, I haven’t found a later comparable set of data from the Bureau of Justice, but you’re welcome to search yourself.
But, once again, the data indicate that mass shootings remain a very, very small portion of homicides. That’s not to say they are not horrific events; they are. But they are anomalies in the sense that they are not representative of the larger issues related to homicides. They are anomalies because they relate more to mental instability rather than intentional crimes, gang wars, etc.
As for choice of self-defense weapon, I can only say it is a free country. If, however, you don’t agree with that, I presume you would be satisfied with everyone being restricted to driving a Ford Fiesta or the ilk.
Also, as I pointed out in the previous post on this subject: https://www.cato.org/blog/are-mass-shootings-becoming-more-frequent . Menzie’s numbers and this source are not in agreement. This source shows approximately one-half of the number of people killed from mass shooting than the 2,100 that Menzie’s post showed. That may be due to the definition of “mass shootings”. I believe the other source used “Mother Jones” data. Regardless, over a 35 year period, the larger 2,100 was about equal to 2 months of the total.
The trend in murder is downward. Mass shootings are rising sharply. That divergence may reflect noise in the mass shooting data, or may reflect a trend shift in mass shootings. Statistical analysis may not reveal a change in its early stages. “Move along, nothing to see here” doesn’t seem a very serious response to a sharp rise in mass shootings, even if we can’t tease a statistically significant change in trend out of the data.
Assault weapons ban (and a assault weapons buyback program, like in Australia) would significantly cut down on these ‘madman anomalies’. Here’s some nice data for perspective: https://www.statista.com/chart/12943/is-it-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban/
“The AR-15 used to be illegal. President Bill Clinton’s assault weapons ban, which was in effect from 1994 to 2004, banned the AR-15 and other guns that were too similar to military-style weapons. However, this law did not prohibit Americans from owning semi-automatic weapons; it capped how many military features an individual gun could have.
“A 2004 report commissioned by the Department of Justice on the effects of the assault weapons ban concluded that the law was largely ineffective at limiting access to weapons with the power of the AR-15. According to the report, the ban focused on “features that have little to do with the weapons’ operation, and removing those features is sufficient to make the weapons legal.” The report noted that several semi-automatic rifles were functionally equivalent to the AR-15 and untouched by the ban.
“The review for the DOJ concluded that bans on specific models or features of assault weapons had little to no discernible impact on gun deaths. If the law had any effect, the report said, it was most likely the result of bans on large-capacity magazines, which contain 10 or more rounds. (Large magazines allow shooters to keep firing without pausing to reload, a point at which their targets could run or fight back.) Calculations based on homicide reports in Jersey City, New Jersey, suggested that restricting large-capacity magazines might lower the number of gunshot victims by up to 5 percent. However, there are a huge number of high-capacity magazines already in circulation. The report authors concluded that a ban on them probably wouldn’t make it hard to keep a determined shooter from legally buying a pre-ban magazine and pairing it with an AR-15 equivalent.”
Guns Like The AR-15 Were Never Fully Banned
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/guns-like-the-ar-15-were-never-fully-banned/
WARNING: Swerving way off Menzie’s post topic here
Some people might thing I disagree with the VSG on everything. Well, there is the 1 in a million thing I might agree with him on. And I can list TWO for anyone who cares to know (Anyone……?? Anyone…..??)
I agree with Trump on Elizabeth Warren’s false Native American claims. On that one topic, I think the woman has proven to be a liar. I think when Trump uses that moniker for her relating to her infamous Native American claims, I personally (yes I am a white male), don’t view it as “racist”. There are other derogatory terms for native Americans Trump could use which I would find very bothersome. But I think when he uses the famous Native American woman’s name he is mocking Elizabeth Warren—he is not mocking said native American.
HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE: If Menzie was going around telling Wisconsin faculty and his internet readers, “I am the greatest investor of all time!!!” I might in a mocking way point my index finger at Menzie and say “Hey, Old Warren Buffett over there keeps bragging about himself, Mr Buffett over there”. I am not mocking Warren Buffett am I?? In my hypothetical example, I would be mocking Menzie by facetiously calling him “Warren Buffett”.
For some reason (a la Hillary Clinton) instead of “coming clean” and admitting she used it as a way to get an inside track to a job in the University system, Elizabeth Warren has very deliberately/intently decided she is going onward with this sham. And if she goes on with this into 2020, she’s going to find herself gaining the same “rewards” Clinton did, for clutching on white-knuckled (pun-intended) to the kind of lies a 5 year old tells.
Also, 2nd thing I agree with the VSG: The monetary aid (useless bribery) we have given the Pakistan government. COMPLETE 100% waste. Gone to a corrupt government AND I believe a large portion has even branched off to terrorists. So…those are like the only two things I can think of I agree with Trump on.
Trump Promise #233. “The crime and violence that today afflicts our nation will soon come to an end. Beginning on January 20, 2017, safety will be restored.”
Verdict? Epic fail.
Obama imposed a sensible regulation that a mentally ill person should not own a gun. Trump ended this sensible regulation. What could go wrong?
Although, the U.S. has more guns per capita than any other country, other countries have much higher homicide rates:
Homicides per 100,000
U.S. 4.88
Mexico 16.35
Honduras 63.75
El Salvador 108.64
Brazil 26.74
Columbia 26.50
Venezuela 57.15
South Africa 37.27
Guns per 100 residents
U.S. 101
Mexico 15
South Africa 12.7
Venezuela 10.7
Brazil 8
Other countries listed above 6 or less
Peaky did not provide a source for homicides per 100,000 people but here is one:
https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5/rankings
The US ranked 83rd out of 195 nations with 4.9. So yea there are some nations with more homicides per capita. But by contrast Japan’s number is 0.3, the UK’s is 0.9, Australia’s number is 1.0, and Canada’s is 1.7.
Look we all realize Peaky Boy’s mission in life is to misrepresent reality. But seriously – can anyone be more stupid with his incessant dishonesty? Peaky – please try harder!
Nice try, what percent of the population in Japan is Hispanic and black?
And, how many illegal immigrants are there?
Moreover, there’s a positive correlation between drug abuse and crime, along with lower median age and crime, etc..
Try to be honest next time – everyone isn’t fool.
“what percent of the population in Japan is Hispanic and black? And, how many illegal immigrants are there?”
Your racist garbage continues. What percent of the latest mass murderer was black or Hispanic? ZERO!
You are not only dishonest – you sound like a White Nationalist. I would ask you to stop this garbage but it appears you can’t.
Very cute, I was responding to your dishonest and ignorant statement on homicides.
How many more blacks do you plan to kill through your homicide and abortion policies?
Obviously, you support the real racists like Robert Byrd.
Gee – some very poor nations compared to the US. Peaky’s propensity to mislead gets stronger each day!
Hey Peaky – if you had an ounce of integrity, you would have included Australia, Canada, Japan, the nations of Western Europe. But you didn’t.
We eagerly await your next feeble attempt at spinning!
Yes, lets create a legitimate discussion by comparing the US with El Salvador. Seriously??? You choose third world countries to compare homicides with the US? Please tell me, was this an accident, or intentional?
When faced with a real source of international comparisons – notice how Peaky Boo played the race card. I’m sorry but he has gone from dishonest to disgusting.
Deaths by mass shooting since 1982, all ages (Mother Jones): 816, 1.0x
Deaths by aircraft attacks since 1982: 2,270 (9/11, Lockerbie), 2.8x
Homicides in Chicago since 1982: 23,558; 28.9x
Automobile fatalities, aged 20 and younger, since 1982: 288,000; 350x
Seriously, that’s your contribution?
He is a race with CoRev and Peaky Boy for the bottom of the barrel.
I don’t want to minimize the horror of the mass shooting event in Florida, but actually Steven is making a good point, and commercial airline fatalities versus driving fatalities is a good analogy. Commercial airline fatalities make the news because they are so rare, while the daily carnage on US highways is largely ignored.
In a similar fashion, mass shooting events in schools make the news, and are unfortunately becoming more common, but what is largely ignored is the daily carnage in US homes, where children are killed by family members. My guess (based on following sources) is that a school age child is roughly 50 to 100 time more likely to be killed by a family member than by a person shooting up a school.
Statistically, I suspect the three biggest threats to the life of a school age child in the US are: (1) The drive to and from school and elsewhere; (2) Family violence and (3). Suicide. Despite the rise in mass shootings, I suspect that the safest place for a school age child in the US is in a classroom.
Some articles:
School Shootings Since Columbine: By the Numbers (February, 2016)
http://abcnews.go.com/US/school-shootings-columbine-numbers/story?id=36833245
*Appears to be over about a six year period
Michael Petit: Why child abuse is so acute in the US (October, 2011)
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-15193530
*Approximately 2,000 children per year, or about 38 per week
So you would ban airline travel? I wouldn’t. We can and should ban the use of military assault weapons to contribute to this perhaps not daily but horrific events.
Of course, my point was in regard to news coverage.
Airline crashes are covered because they are rare. What is not covered is the daily carnage on the roads. Mass school shooting are covered because they are rare, but unfortunately becoming more common. What is not covered is the daily family violence carnage.
If the ABC News item is correct (141 people killed in a mass murder or attempted mass murder at a school since Columbine, 1999 to about 2015), and if the BBC item is correct, more kids were killed by family members in one average month in the US than were killed in mass shooting events in the 15 years following Columbine.
And an item on the reported number of school shootings, from the Washington Post:
No, there haven’t been 18 school shootings in 2018. That number is flat wrong.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/local/2017/09/15/road-rage-a-bullet-to-the-head-and-the-frantic-effort-to-save-a-4-year-old/?tid=a_mcntx&utm_term=.884d70198b17
And in regard to legislation, I don’t have any problem with limiting access to high capacity magazines, but one should keep in mind that two semi-automatic pistols with 14 round magazines is pretty much equivalent to a 30 round magazine on an AR-15 (and the US Army Islamic terrorist that shot up Fort Hood used high capacity semi-automatic handguns), and I think that background checks should be expanded. But as noted above, the 2016 murder rate, although up, was 48% below the 1980 rate:
The U.S. Murder Rate Is Up But Still Far Below Its 1980 Peak
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-u-s-murder-rate-is-up-but-still-far-below-its-1980-peak/
What is really up that almost no one talks about is the steep rise in US driving fatalities, up by about 5,000, just from 2013 to 2016, which was almost certainly due to distracted driving, primarily due to cellphone use while driving. But no one talks about thousands of dead kids due to distracted driving because it’s a daily occurrence.
US Motor Vehicle Fatality Rate by year:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year
Sorry, should read as follows, although that number seems low (about 10 per year?):
Mass shootings are dramatic, but rare. This is a tragic event, and perhaps could have been prevented by timely FBI or local police intervention. The perpetrator was a known risk at the school, online, and with the police. A person like this should not have access to guns. On the other hand, it’s not clear that simply putting him on a proscribed list would have prevented him from obtaining a gun.
The gun, as I understand it, was an off-the-shelf M&P 15 semi-automatic rifle. Nothing special.
Rifles are used only in about 2.5% of murders in the US, about half the pace of fists and feet, knives or blunt objects. You could ban them all and not be able to see any difference in homicide statistics. That doesn’t make the event any less tragic, but in terms of policy, I don’t see much in the way of constructive intervention opportunity unless you’re willing to overturn the 2nd amendment.
As for the statistics, I don’t know that I’ve ever seen Menzie post on, say, Chicago, where there are 62 murders to date this year. Why are those murders less important to Menzie than the 17 in Florida?
Menzie choose to start the time series in 1982 (ie, that’s how far Mother Jones goes back). If we’re going back to 1982, I think we really need to add all mass murders, and not just those with guns. In the US (or for the US), three-quarters of all mass murders have been committed using aircraft. Should these not rightly be included in a count of this sort?
Steven Kopits perhaps could have been prevented by timely FBI or local police intervention.
And intervene on what basis??? Up until the shooting the kid had not committed any crime. He bought the rifle legally. Or are you suggesting that the FBI and police should dedicate resources to trailing and tracking people who have not yet committed crimes? My, how very Soviet Warsaw Bloc of you. I gather that it’s okay to interfere with people’s privacy rights, but God help the politician who dares to infringe on gun rights. That’s a sick policy.
You could ban them all and not be able to see any difference in homicide statistics.
Well, it’s a start. You’re guilty of allowing the perfect to become the enemy of the good.
…unless you’re willing to overturn the 2nd amendment.
Yes, I’m willing to overturn the 2nd Amendment. It was a stupid idea then and it’s even more stupid today. I don’t see any reason why we couldn’t make gun ownership a conditional privilege rather than a fundamental right in the same way that having a driver’s license is a conditional privilege and not a constitutional right.
three-quarters of all mass murders have been committed using aircraft. Should these not rightly be included in a count of this sort?
You’re confused about the statistics. Count data is about the probability of an event happening, not about the number killed in each event.
Well, having lived in the Warsaw Pact, I can assure this is not that.
According to the NY Post, deputies visited the shooter’s home 39 times in seven years. A reader of an online comment of the shooter notified the FBI. No one at the school was surprised he came back and shot up the place. The FBI has conceded that it blew the case.
I think there is a reasonable threshold here, and I think we were over that. We know that mental health issues have a very high correlation with mass shooters (ie, most mass shooters have mental health issues, not all mental health issues lead to mass shootings). In this case, there were many, many signs over an extended period of time that this was a person from whom a deadly weapon might be withheld.
This was not true, in my opinion, in the Stephen Paddock Las Vegas shooting. It didn’t really seem to have a precedent, to the best of my knowledge, no priors, no overt strange behavior, nothing which would have signal his credible intention to third parties. I didn’t detect a chance to intervene there, but I did here.
You would be mistaken to think I am a great fan of guns. I am not. But I am not a great fan of motorcycles, either. But it is not my call to make. Many people in the country like guns and like motorcycles, and other pasttimes that are potentially dangerous. Most of the time, guns and motorcycles can be handled safely. Sometimes not. In most those cases, the owners and their families pay the price if something goes wrong. That is their choice, even if I would not take the risk.
What bothers me is a ridiculous analysis totaling 816 deaths over 36 years. In the US, 5,000 people die of choking each year. More than 5,000 people die in bicycle accidents every year. Automobile collisions with deer total 200 deaths / year. And mass shootings? 23 per year. For a country of 320 million, that’s a very small number in terms of public policy. And yet, we’re spilling a lot of ink over mass shootings.
It’s not that it not tragic and horrible. But in public policy terms, its emotional impact is vastly greater than its weight in policy.
Like it again, Steven. Logical and rational unlike many of the comments/commenters.
Steven Kopits Nice try, but you didn’t address a single point that I made. For example, suppose the FBI hadn’t dropped the ball. What was the FBI supposed to do? Arrest Cruz for not committing a crime??? He bought the gun legally. Trump watered down the mental illness ban. My point was that you might have lived in a Warsaw Pact country a bit too long if you think it’s okay for the police to detain someone simply because they might commit a crime at some unknown future date. That’s the stuff of a bad Tom Cruise movie.
You also didn’t address my point about your letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. The fact that (at least so far) mass murders don’t happen as often as motorcycle accidents doesn’t mean we should just sit idly by and let mass murders happen anymore than we allow motorcyclists to drive recklessly. We can’t stop all motorcycle accidents, but we do have laws to try to keep those to a minimum. We can’t stop choking deaths, but we do have criminal and civil tort laws that bans toy manufacturers from creating choking hazards. And mass murders don’t just affect those who are killed. Plenty of innocent people are wounded in these attacks. And they leave deep and long lasting emotional scars on entire communities in a way that motorcycle accidents and random, garden variety murders do not. As you yourself just said, “its emotional impact is vastly greater than its weight in policy.” So maybe we should put more weight on policy in order to equalize the weight in emotional impact.
Slugs –
Cruz “bought the gun legally. Trump watered down the mental illness ban.”
I don’t know the state of the ban. I do know this kid should not have been allowed to buy a gun. To hear it from his classmates, a number felt he really should have been committed to an insititution.
“My point was that you might have lived in a Warsaw Pact country a bit too long if you think it’s okay for the police to detain someone simply because they might commit a crime at some unknown future date.”
Actually, the experience taught me a more about corruption and the black market than the police state. Those experiences serve as the basis of our market-based immigration initiative, more on which later.
“You also didn’t address my point about your letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. The fact that (at least so far) mass murders don’t happen as often as motorcycle accidents doesn’t mean we should just sit idly by and let mass murders happen anymore than we allow motorcyclists to drive recklessly. We can’t stop all motorcycle accidents, but we do have laws to try to keep those to a minimum. We can’t stop choking deaths, but we do have criminal and civil tort laws that bans toy manufacturers from creating choking hazards. And mass murders don’t just affect those who are killed.”
Realistically, a complete ban on weapons anda full collection of all existing weapons might prevent, say, 10 mass murders a year. Remember, the mass murder rate was higher in the UK than the US this past year, and higher in France in 2016. Do I think it worthwhile to collect several hundred million weapons, confiscate rifles which cause half as many deaths as ‘fist and feet’, and prevent millions of law-abiding citizens from the right to their firearms? No. But, hey, if you want to repeal the 2nd Amendment, have at it. I am trying to convince people that saving 300k migrants a year is a worthy cause.
And by the way, why aren’t you advocating for collecting those illegal weapons which are responsible for the majority of gun homicides in the country today? Isn’t that where we should start? If we can’t collect those today, what makes you think we can collect the remainder later?
What ulitmately evolves from all this is hysteria. We now have armed guards at two my children’s high schools. Yet the odds of being shot on campus are minimal. The odds of dying in car accident are 1,000 times greater. The kids are 500 times more likely to commit suicide. Neither of these schools has an FTE devoted to matters 500-1000 time more likely than a shooting on campus.
That’s the difference between emotion and policy. If you are a policy analyst or decision maker, your job is to manage the risk, not be yanked around by emotion, however compelling.
Violent nation!
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/check-out-nikki-haley-pretending-she-doesnt-love-violence-and-dead-children-d01728c1b7b8
Clinton’s spark was not deviation from norm on treating women, it was establishing the liberal neocon norm. It was his liberal empire, bashing apart Serbia, expanding NATO……..
It was democrats strong on war waste and uncontrolled destruction.
If random death in Florida is different than the carnage US has spread the past 25 years…………….
US is exceptional!
Could you limit your insanity to Mark Thoma’s comment section? Geesh!
Another quick statistical test. Summing the count data into annualized buckets from 1982 thru 2011 (30 annual observations), the data can be well described by a Poisson distribution with a lambda value of 1.876. The range of frequency buckets runs from 0 to 5, or six degrees of freedom. The Poisson distribution can be completely described using two parameters (lambda and frequency), that leaves us with four degrees of freedom. The Chi-Sq critical value at 0.05 and four degrees of freedom is 9.488. Crunching the data the computed test statistic is 4.620. Therefore, you cannot reject the hypothesis that the count data comes from a Poisson distributed population. But that’s only thru 2011. Using the same lambda value of 1.867 the likelihood that you’d get 7 hits in one year (as in 2012 and 2015) is less than 0.0025. And the chances of getting 11 hits (as in 2017) are virtually zero. So it’s pretty clear that something has gone off the rails since 2011. And this pretty much demolishes PeakTrader’s garbage about Clinton being responsible.
PeakTrader and CoRev
Looks like you’ve been caught:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16/us/russian-bots-florida-shooting-intl/index.html
Bwahahahaha. Caught doing what? Looks like your MAGA hat story and the AP Shooter attended white supremacist camp are fakes. Russia or just gullible?
Looks like your MAGA hat story and the AP Shooter attended white supremacist camp are fakes.
Did you get that from Fox Noise?
Not much doubt about the MAGA hat. According to the fact checkers at snopes.com the story is true.
https://www.snopes.com/did-shooters-instagram-picture-maga-hat/
And there’s also a video that was taken by a neighbor showing him shooting a BB gun wearing the MAGA hat:
http://www.tmz.com/2018/02/16/nikolas-cruz-make-america-great-again-shooter-florida-shirtless/
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/disturbing-video-footage-shows-florida-suspect-nikolas-cruz-doing-target-practice-in-his-garden-a3768051.html
http://www.insideedition.com/nikolas-cruz-practiced-shooting-while-wearing-make-america-great-again-hat-video-shows-40797
Don’t know about his attending white supremacist groups, although one of those groups claims that he did attend.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikolas-cruz-trained-with-florida-white-supremacist-group-leader-says
2slugs, did you even read the snopes account? Even it says there is some doubt, and when it says it is confirmed it goes to a page that doesn’t do so
You might be onto something with the Russia bot story. You might just have followed one down another fake rat hole.
ComradeRev
Yes, I read the snopes.com confirmation. It mainly shoots down the denials coming from right wing sites. But I also posted links to a video of Cruz wearing a MAGA hat, and that’s beyond any dispute.
As to what you were caught doing, by that I meant you were repeating Russian troll stories that presented pro-gun and pro-Trump talking points immediately after the Florida shooting. You were caught being an “unwitting” dupe of the NRA.
2slugs, you must be both desperate and gullible to accept that snopes report and the video without any skepticism. Nothing is clear enough to actually show who is behind the mask, is that his house, and even snopes says the alternative site may be fake.
The TDS bug has bitten deep to link him to Trump.
CoRev The photo is probably Cruz and the weight of evidence suggests that it is, although I would agree it’s not 100 percent certain. That’s why I also included the video. There is absolutely no doubt that the kid wearing the MAGA hat is Cruz and there is no doubt that it’s his house. His neighbors confirmed it.
And no one is linking him to Trump. It’s the other way around. Trump and Trumpism are being linked to him in the same way that KKK, Nazis, alt-right and other far right wing groups feel empowered and vindicated by Trump. In the 1960s and early 1970s it was the extreme far left that gave us nut job terrorists. In the 2010s the nut jobs come from the far right. And you’re not helping when you make excuses and create all kinds of fake doubt about whether or not this particular kind of whacko is attracted to Trumpism.
2slugs, you can beleive what you want, but this is over the top: ” Trump and Trumpism are being linked to him in the same way that KKK, Nazis, alt-right and other far right wing groups feel empowered and vindicated by Trump.” That is only true in TDS-land. Your syndrome seems to over power logic.
Mueller has indicted some of these Russian bots. Could CoRev be next?
Am I correct that Peak Trader is a rentier baby, and never worked a day in his life? Happy to be shown to be wrong.
Am I correct that Peak Trader is a rentier baby and never worked a day in his life? Happy to be proved wrong.
Your mom must have had at least triplets.
“You might be onto something with the Russia bot story.”
Sheesh. In this age of globalization Trump is even outsourcing fascism now.
Joseph, “…Trump is even outsourcing fascism now.” TDS is strong in this fellow. Indictment cites NO AMERICANS. Wonder what would happen if Israel also investigated election influence? Indict Obama?
ComradeRev Wonder what would happen if Israel also investigated election influence? Indict Obama?
Huh? You’re really out of touch with American politics. You must be a Russian bot. In case you didn’t know, the Israeli lobby and (soon to be convicted felon) NuttandYahoo were hardly big fans of Obama or Clinton; they were all backing the Muscovite Candidate.
2slugs, misdirect & ignore the issue. Obama DIRECTLY impacted the Israeli election. You know that!
Sure. You bet. That must be why NuttandYahoo won. If anything the interference went the other way. The Israeli lobby and Likud were unabashedly pro-Trump. Once again you’re defending the Russian interference by pretending that Obama interfered in elections too. Why are you trying to suggest some kind of moral equivalence? BTW, how’s the weather in St. Petersburg?
2slug, how soon we forget: ” If anything the interference went the other way.” From the Jerusalem Post: http://www.jpost.com/Blogs/The-View-from-Israel/Obamas-shocking-interference-into-Israels-election-process-389858
Moaral equivalence-
“The Obama presidential election team has set up camp in Tel Aviv with the mission to defeat Netanyahu in our upcoming election.
The “Anyone but Bibi” mission is headed by Jeremy Bird, Obama’s National Field Director in his successful presidential campaigns.
Under Bird, a group called “Victory 15” has been set up. It has recruited the young activists from Israel’s 2013 social protest movement and will man a massive social network and personal contact campaign to defeat Bibi. V15 is financed by an NGO called “One Voice” whose motto is to be “the voice of mainstream Israelis and Palestinians.” Research finds that One Voice is funded by John Kerry’s State Department.
In its press release, V15 calls itself “non partisan” which is clearly a lie. Its aim is solely to defeat Bibi,
Can we really call that “non partisan”? ”
Your selective morals are truly amazing. Why are you trying to suggest there is no moral equivalence? Setting up shop in the country to defeat a candidate and having the US taxpayers pay for it.
Only a fool would give away his or her rights and depend on the government.
Those fools want everyone, except the privileged rich and well-connected, to be a soft target.
After all, they believe the law-abiding masses are just too dumb, like themselves.
And, they don’t know deterrence and protection work to prevent or stop crimes.
You don’t need a gun to deter criminals – the uncertainty can be enough – however, making it certain law-abiding citizens cannot carry guns will turn them into targets.
And, if criminals can have guns, law-abiding citizens should have guns.
The notion that other kids in this high school would have made it safe is beyond insane even for you.
OK – maybe the school needed security guards but right wing cheapos like you wanted tax cuts so the budget cuts made that impossible. In other words, the blood of those 17 kids is on your hands.
pgl Actually, that school did have armed security guards. It didn’t make any difference. Only Fox Noise viewers “think” otherwise.
https://thinkprogress.org/fox-news-parkland-shooting-armed-guard-7fbe62f8f27f/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/armed-guard-florida-school-encountered-rampaging-gunman-article-1.3822777
Allowing teachers to bring guns isn’t costly.
There are inexpensive ways to secure a school.
You just want to waste more money and cause more dead kids.
PeakTraitor
if criminals can have guns, law-abiding citizens should have guns
Actually, the research shows that otherwise law abiding citizens are more prone to becoming criminals if they have guns. For example, “carry laws” have significantly increased rates of violent crime.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w23510
That’s just one study.
“A comprehensive 2004 review of the existing literature by the National Academy of Sciences found that the results of existing studies were sensitive to the specification and time period examined, and concluded that a causal link between right-to-carry laws and crime rates cannot be shown.[4] Quinnipiac University economist Mark Gius summarized literature published between 1993 and 2005, and found that ten papers suggested that permissive CCW laws reduce crime, one paper suggested they increase crime, and nine papers showed no definitive results.[110] “
There are methodological flaws. For example:
“These papers fail to recognize that it is frequently only the largest counties by population that are very restrictive when local authorities have been given discretion in granting concealed handgun permits. Therefore, state “shall issue” concealed handgun permit laws, which require permit requests be granted by the local authorities unless the individual has a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness will not alter the number of permits being issued in all counties. In other words, since rural counties generally already permit a substantial amount of concealed handguns, the effect of introducing a state law should be small in those counties.”
PeakTraitor Once again you are citing old, old, old literature. The point of the June 2017 NBER study was that it reversed the earlier panel studies, which were inconclusive because there wasn’t enough history. By 2017 there was enough history to demonstrate a robust and statistically significant increase. You’re really lousy at econometrics.
2slugbaits – the real traitor – one paper is not the entire literature. And, the lead author had the same conclusion long ago, when he was still an outlier. Obviously, you’re shallow in econometrics.
And, 2slugbaits – the real traitor – how does that paper measure the deterrent effect?
The Aurora shooter happened to pick the only theater that had a sign saying no (concealed carry) guns allowed.
2slugbaits, and yes, I’m a traitor to your Stalinist system.
God bless America.
Those willing to give up their rights either are ignorant of the consequences or believe big government will take care of them.
I guess the kids who went to that high school and gave up their right to live were “fools” according our resident racist – PeakyBoo.
I would ask if you could get more disgusting but the answer is very likely yes.
Obviously, the school didn’t protect those kids.
And, you have a long history of racism – shifting blame doesn’t change that.
Hello, time to wake up.
Corev: “Indictment cites NO AMERICANS.”
Oops, too late, Corev. At the same time as the indictment, Mueller announced that a California man had already pleaded guilty to assisting the Russians related to the indictment.
Here is Trump in November after meeting with Putin: “He said he didn’t meddle. He said he didn’t meddle. I asked him again. You can only ask so many times,”
“Every time he sees me, he says, ‘I didn’t do that,’ ” Trump said. “And I believe, I really believe, that when he tells me that, he means it.”
“I think he is very insulted by it,” Trump added.
So Trump is either profoundly stupid or complicit, likely both. Too stupid to be president. For more than a year Trump has been denying the involvement of the Russians in the election. Turns out that he has been lying. Why is Trump covering for Putin and denying all the evidence provided by his own intelligence agencies?
It is clear that Trump has been lying to American citizens and providing cover for Putin. It is obvious that the interests of Trump and the interests of American citizens are not the same.
I agree. It’s really beginning to stink. Just recently Trump inexplicably allowed several high ranking Russians into the country despite their being banned by name. And we only learned about it from overseas sources. To this day Team Trump is all about radio silence on the issue. And of course Fox Noise viewers are clueless as ever. I’ve always suspected that the Russians had some financial leverage over Trump, but until recently I was skeptical about the dossier claim in which Trump engaged in golden showers with several Russian prostitutes while he was in Moscow. But with the Stormy Daniels and Playboy centerfold stories along with a ridiculous number of one-off LLCs having been created to pay off people with a story to tell, now I’m not so sure. My cynical side thinks that Trump is gradually leaking some of these stories in order to inoculate himself against the more sordid revelations that Putin has over Trump’s head. After awhile people will no longer be shocked by Trump’s utterly immoral behavior.
Joseph, again you misunderstand fundamentals. I said: “Indictment cites NO AMERICANS.” The plea deal is outside the indictment. Your desperation to include the Trump camp is not supported by either the indictment nor any of the pleas. Your CA plea: “Richard Pinedo of Santa Paula pleaded guilty earlier this month to using stolen identities to set up bank accounts that were then used by the Russians. A Justice Department spokeswoman says Pinedo did not know at the time he was dealing with Russians.” Wonder if he is legal, or if legal who he voted for?
Joseph, I know you are trying, but your TDS causes you to miss the mark. (A shooting metaphor.)
Corev: “Wonder if he is legal?”
Now, I wonder why Corev would say that?
Slug you wrote,
“Just recently Trump inexplicably allowed several high ranking Russians into the country despite their being banned by name.”
I had not heard of this and can not find any such story. Sure wish you can provide a link.
Ed
Ed Hanson: NYT.
Thanks Menzie,
for the link. The NYT article named one Russian, Sergey Naryshkin, who was sanctioned. But not the several related by Slug. And since NYT is not foreign press, it does not seem to be the Slug source. And according to the Department of the Treasury’s announcement in 2014, Sergey Naryshkin was not banned but sanctioned economically. I will leave that part of the subject for Slug to fill in, but ask you Menzie a much more important question.
The purpose of Sergey Naryshkin, the chief of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, being in the US was to meet in that capacity with the Director of the CIA. Do you Menzie, like Slug, think that the two greatest nuclear States should be incommunicative as part of sanctions? I suggest that anything in that direction only leads closer to war.
Ed
Corev: “Your desperation to include the Trump camp is not supported by either the indictment nor any of the pleas.”
From the indictment:
The Russians “engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump,” according to the indictment, which was issued Friday.
“Specialists were instructed to post content that focused on ‘politics in the USA’ and to ‘use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump – we support them),’” the indictment said.
Now, this has been known for some time. Obama and the Republican Congressional leaders knew this before the election, but McConnell refused to release that information. Even though Trump has been briefed on this, he has been publicly denying it for over a year. You have to ask yourself why Trump would continue to cover up Putin’s operation to swing the election to Trump. Why lie about it?
Further, Trump has done nothing to protect the 2018 elections from Russian interference. Why?
Meanwhile, Congress passed the “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act” back in July by a margin of 98 to 2 in the Senate and a margin of 419 to 3 in the House. But Trump has refused to implement the law. You have to ask yourself why Trump would refuse to enforce sanctions against Russia after they helped him win the 2016 election. This law was passed near-unanimously and still Trump continues to cover for Putin. Why?
Joseph, ” Obama and the Republican Congressional leaders knew this before the election, but McConnell refused to release that information. ” But yhe Obama administration refused to do anything of note. Congress, on the other hand did: “Meanwhile (the Republican) , Congress passed the “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act” back in July by a margin of 98 to 2 in the Senate and a margin of 419 to 3 in the House. ” Trump then grudgingly signed the Bill with caveats.
Only little minded TDS sufferers ask these kinds of questions without considering the wider ramifications: “This law was passed near-unanimously and still Trump continues to cover for Putin. Why?” Your wonderings might be assuaged if you actually read articles or better understood how the Fed Govt worked and the meanings of separation of powers for which most of Trumps concerned were focused. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/world/europe/trump-russia-sanctions.html
You might also note the Russian reaction and when to the Bill.
It’s 11:30 PM on a Saturday night after the death of 17 children in Florida and here is the president:
@realDonaldTrump
Very sad that the FBI missed all of the many signals sent out by the Florida school shooter. This is not acceptable. They are spending too much time trying to prove Russian collusion with the Trump campaign – there is no collusion. Get back to the basics and make us all proud!
The death of children and all Trump can do is feel sorry for himself. He’s a psychopath.
@realDonaldTrump
General McMaster forgot to say that the results of the 2016 election were not impacted or changed by the Russians and that the only Collusion was between Russia and Crooked H, the DNC and the Dems. Remember the Dirty Dossier, Uranium, Speeches, Emails and the Podesta Company!
In the middle of the night he’s feeling the pressure of the tightening noose and babbling nonsense like a gibbering idiot. It portends a horrible psychic breakdown. Meanwhile the entire Republican Party just looks away, pretending they don’t see anything wrong.
This is not normal.
its a scary thought, but trump appears to agree with me on the topic of automatic weapons
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/20/trump-signs-a-memo-telling-attorney-general-sessions-to-ban-devices-that-turn-weapons-into-machine-guns.html
basically the ar15 with a bump stock is an automatic assault weapon. there are folks on this blog who have argued against this, using technicality of definitions (most likely proposed by the nra), to argue a bump stock does not create an automatic weapon. but if you listen to the gunshots in the las vegas shooting, common sense would tell you that was an automatic weapon being fired. it simply did not match how the nra wants to define an automatic weapon-but they should not be able to dictate the conversation anyway. corev and others on this site did not want to admit this created an automatic weapon. apparently trump disagrees with them, and agrees with reality for once. hopefully this moves us one step closer to actually removing assault weapons from society.
Baffled, I don’t remember arguing against bump stocks. AFAIK I deliberately chose not to comment on that subject. Refresh my memory, please.
in a discussion also involving rick stryker, the two of you danced around the idea that a bump stock created an automatic assault weapon.
“A bump stock is NOT a weapon. ”
Technicalities were used to avoid calling a spade a spade.
Assault weapons can’t “actually” be removed from society.
You can remove them from law-abiding citizens, like the Nazis, and make them less secure.
You’ll continue to fail removing them from criminals.
You just want to turn good people into targets.
and now peaktrader takes on the role of the nra troll. at other times, he is the russian troll. and the fraudster banker troll.
“You just want to turn good people into targets.”
no, i am trying to keep children and good, innocent folks from being shot to death by assault weapons. you are advocating a policy that will continue to allow the slaughter of innocent lives in schools and public areas. the blood is on your hands comrade bottom trader.