Thankfully, Mr. Trump in conjunction with the Republican controlled Congress have implemented policies to address this issue in manner supported by evidence-based research.
Figure 1: Cumulative fatalities from mass shootings since 2009M01 (blue), since 2017M01 (red), on a log scale. May observation assumes lower bound of 8 fatalities. Source: Mother Jones accessed 5/18, news accounts, author’s calculations.
It took 4-1/2 years from 2009M01 to match the number of fatalities that have been recorded in the 16 months since 2017M01.
Figure 2: Cumulative injuries from mass shootings since 2009M01 (blue), since 2017M01 (red), on a log scale. May observation assumes zero injuries. Source: Mother Jones accessed 5/18, news accounts, author’s calculations.
I know the answer here.
Republicans can say a prayer on Twitter, and then say a prayer on Facebook, and then lead a prayer in a Congressional office press release to the media. Republican senators and Republican House representatives can all “get together”, lower their heads solemnly in front of network cameras magically beckoned to the scene, and say “Thank you Jesus, thank you oh dear Lord Jesus, that we have ‘the good people’ with guns.” Pause for melodramatic MAGA affect “Yes, thank you dear Lord Jesus for the ‘good people’ with guns. We ask dear Lord Jesus that Reagan and Charlton Heston shine their heavenly light upon us. May the heavenly light of Charlton Heston and ‘good people’ with guns heal the limp and dead children who were not saved by ‘good people’ with guns. In Heston’s and Reagan’s holy name we pray, Ah Whitemen”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORYVCML8xeE
Listening to the news – what exactly happened is still fluid. It sounds like a 17 year student did the shooting and someone brought in bombs that fortunately did not go off. There is another person of interest but the police are very busy getting this mess under control and making sure everyone else is OK.
I prefer data to emotion.
According to Mother Jones:
• 143 weapons used in mass shootings
• 20 were so-called assault rifles
• A majority of the shooters had mental health issues
Conclusion: It’s Trump’s fault for not banning all “assault rifles”.
No, no, no. Don’t look at what’s happening in Chicago or LA or Baltimore. No problem there. You’d be a racist, Trump supporter if you said those were bigger problems.
• https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/03/chicago-40-people-shot-warm-weather/577876002/
• http://homicide.latimes.com/
• http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2018/05/09/baltimore-100th-homicide-this-year/
Yup, it’s all about those 20 assault rifles.
bruce, i do not see you doing anything to eliminate the murder of students on campus. you have done nothing to keep those students from being killed. all in the name of the nra, who it has been recently shown to receive russian funds to further their cause. should make you pause and think about the silly positions the nra has staked out in recent years…
baffling, well in the latest case banning “assault rifles” (in reality, only AR-15), the outcome would have been the same. I believe I heard that explosives may have been in play as well. If so, the outcome could have been worse… again unaffected by an AR-15 ban.
Perhaps better security is needed. Why should we pay for armed protection for our politicians if they won’t pay for armed protection of our children? Now there is only reactive action rather than deterrence. Take one billion out of the military budget and apply it to school security. The military wouldn’t notice the difference. That would buy approximate 2 million semi-automatic pistols or rifles or shotguns that could be used to protect the schools.
If you’ve learned anything about human nature and history, it is that peace and freedom comes from strength. You can’t reason with an evil regime; you can’t reason with an evil person. You can only use deterrence or force.
Bruce, you have yet to provide a solution which keeps our children safe. It appears you are willing to sacrifice other people’s children in the name of gun rights. Sad really.
Bruce Hall A helluva a lot of it is all about semi-automatic weapons with large magazine capacities. We’ll never be able to completely eliminate murders by gunfire, but that doesn’t mean we can’t do anything to mitigate the damage. No one needs a 100 round banana clip magazine. No one even needs a 30 round magazine. No one needs 10 round magazines. If you’re that bad of a shot that you that many rounds, then you don’t have any business owning any firearm. Are there any gunowners out there willing to admit that they’re such a crappy shot that they need 100 rounds to shoot a rabbit or a squirrel? Do you need a large magazine capacity when you go sport shooting? I hope not. Most gunowners in my family like to brag about what great shots they are. If they’re to be believed, then they shouldn’t have any problem with restricting the number of rounds that can be fired without manual reloading.
We should also make gunowners criminally responsible for lost or stolen guns used in a crime. In today’s case the killer used his father’s guns. Texas has the death penalty. I want to see the NRA demand the death penalty for the father’s responsibility in allowing his son to commit a crime. Of course, that’s not going to happen unless the father is also some undocumented immigrant or an MS-13 member.
2slug,
Need is not the issue. You don’t have a need to express your opinions in a forum like this; you simply want to. That’s the 1st Amendment right that you have. You can be like Moses and gratuitously insult and provoke. That’s his right. It’s also your right to own firearms. You may not need to, but you have the right to. Misuse by a few (and the math of it is that the mass shooters are somewhere around, what, 7 or 8 sigma, doesn’t mean that the rights of the vast majority should be withdrawn. Address the problem appropriately: automatic death penalty for mass killers and expanded protection for schools and public places.
If we can expend hundreds of billions of dollars to fight terrorism on the basis of what 19 individuals did in 2001, why can’t we spend at least part of that to protect against the thousands of murders each year perpetrated by husbands and wives and gangbangers and political extremists? Why punish the innocent by attacking their rights? Why focus on the small fraction of one percent?
As for making someone criminally liable for the actions of someone else, does that apply to those killed by a stolen vehicle?
But here’s the deal: I’ll give up magazines over ten rounds if you give up writing your opinions in forums and sending letters to your congressmen. Giving up a bit of your rights doesn’t lessen your life, does it? We’ll start there and work on your other rights later. How about asset forfeiture for thinking wrong thoughts?
Face it, 2slug, you’re driven by emotion, not reason in all of this.
Bruce Hall Actually, I think you’re more driven by a weird gun fetish. The right to bear arms has never meant the right to any kind of arm. You can’t own howitzers. You can’t own flame throwers. You can’t own a TOW missile. You can’t own lots of weapons. There are plenty of restrictions. People also have the right to go to school without being shot. But apparently your right to a gun trumps everyone else’s rights.
does that apply to those killed by a stolen vehicle?
If you’re driving a stolen car and someone in that car commits a felony, then yes, you are criminally liable even if you didn’t know the person in the car committed a crime. If the passenger commits a murder, then you too can be found guilty of murder. I’m just applying that same principle.
I’ll make you another offer. If you agree to reasonable restrictions on the kinds of firearms accessories, I’ll let you keep some of your guns. The NRA doesn’t know it yet, but that’s the real world choice that gunowners are going to have to make. Gunowners are a dying and shrinking demographic. In the not too distant future the 2nd Amendment will become a dead letter. That’s what eventually happens when you find yourself fighting an uncompromising rearguard action, which is what the NRA is doing lately. The rearguard action holds for awhile, but when it breaks it breaks very quickly. That’s the lesson that the NRA should learn from Australia’s experience.
If we can expend hundreds of billions of dollars to fight terrorism on the basis of what 19 individuals did in 2001, why can’t we spend at least part of that to protect
Fine with me. I never supported the Bush 43 GWOT. It was a stupid waste of blood and treasure.
2slugbaits: Darn! I can’t own my own TOW or Javelin? I guess my own TacNuke is out too…where’s that Second Amendment when you need it?
2slugs, Bruce observed: “Face it, 2slug, you’re driven by emotion, not reason in all of this.” and your response confirmed his observation.
2slug: ” …I think ….”
and “…But apparently your right to a gun trumps everyone else’s rights.” Yes, it’s a right not a wish, want, or weird liberal idea of the issue of the day.
and “…Gunowners are a dying and shrinking demographic. …” Yet US gun ownership has been amazingly consistent per household for the past 45 years. https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-households-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/
and the final emotional response: “Fine with me. I never supported the Bush 43 GWOT. It was a stupid waste of blood and treasure.” Who care you were almost as obsessed with BDS as your TDS. You appear to be proud of being deranged.
@Menzie, did you note that 2slugs was making a point of what is restricted to own??? NO!, just more extreme emotion without a point.
2slug, no, no, no.
Your argument was that anyone who owns a gun that was stolen and used in a crime should be criminally responsible.
My retort was that your logic says anyone who owns a vehicle that was stolen and used in a crime should be criminally responsible.
Your response: If you’re driving a stolen car and someone in that car commits a felony, then yes, you are criminally liable even if you didn’t know the person in the car committed a crime.
non sequitur
Menzie,
Careful what and when you say something, because you’re not covered by the 1st Amendment: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/schenck-v-united-states-defining-the-limits-of-free-speech/ . and https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/supreme-court-ruling-upholds-limits-on-free-speech-in-case-involving-anti-gay-proselytizer/article9104862/
Careful what you’re accused of because you’re not covered by the 4th and 10th Amendments: http://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-ruling-on-civil-forfeiture-2014-11
So, maybe our government won’t let you own a TOW or mini-nuke, but… http://cimsec.org/private-anti-piracy-navies-warships-hire-changing-maritime-security/12075 . You just have to find the government that needs you.
Damn that Constitution! It makes it so hard for the government to stomp on you.
Now now now, you guys. Obviously all these recent mass shootings have been by either immigrant terrorists or left wing anti-gun Dem activists just doing this to make Trump and the NRA look bad, not to mention that in all these case there clearly were not enough good guys with guns there. Please get with the program, you unpatriotic naughty people!
The enduring link
between demography
and inflation
by Mikael Juselius and Előd Takáts
https://www.bis.org/publ/work722.pdf
SOME people know the suitable way to react within certain contexts. Make a notation “Princeton” Kopits.
http://abc13.com/sports/jj-watt-to-pay-for-funerals-of-the-10-santa-fe-hs-victims/3494008/?sf189875949=1