FBI: More People Killed with Hammers, Clubs Each Year Than Rifles

I don't know...the Viet Cong and the Mujahadeen seem to have done pretty well!

 

Not to mention: how much do you trust the dude that just FUELED that helicopter? You SURE he didn't, say, put some water in the tanks? Or a handful of sand?

 

Paranoia.

Successful conspiracies are neither so complicated or broad.
Select a group of people.
Convict them of a felony count and place them on probation.
Legally, they are no longer allowed to own guns.
Have the police stop them on the street and search them and their cars. Completely permissible,
Have their probation officer search their homes, businesses, even the homes of friends and relatives. Again, completely permissible.

Really, not that difficult.
We've been doing it to Blacks for 100 years.

Well, you have.

 

No.
You lied, well, your quoted link does.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state#data

A newspaper story but it links to FBI data.
68% of 2011's murders were by firearms so I think we can say they are a problem.
It may well be, the murderer's weapon of choice is a pistol rather than a rifle but that hardly means guns are safe, just that idiots like to demi lie in a crude attempt to make it look that way.

 

Nutters: more people bitten to death by mice than shot down in schools by American nutters. And the band played Believe it if you Like. How can one country hold so many weirdoes without bursting?

 

Um no Im in full accordance with the facts which prove you wrong, the attack was already underway, a number of people were already dead or wounded, so there was no prevention of anything. 10 people dead or wounded in a short time by the time he was detained.

Youre trying to argue that somehow the massacre was prevented, which is just as silly as saying the columbine high massacre was prevented by the police surrounding the building barring the assailants from escape and further violence. Again with some 12 kids dead nothing was prevented.

So....are you trying to pull the wool over our eyes? It seems so, I advise you to cease and desist.

 

Then why convict the man if the gun is guilty?

 

well, while you argue, I stil have mine....that's like trying to talk a wolf into giving up a steak....... whatcha gonna do, shoot me to get it? Then that makes you the criminal............

 

You are quite correct but, would you obey orders to destroy your neighborhood? I think not.

 

You just can't admit that you were wrong and now you're moving the goalposts and creating a strawman.

Allow me to recap the exchange for you. Bowerbird made the statement that "...the only mass shootings that have been stopped by people who are not on duty police were ones stopped by off duty police." Notice that she is talking about stopping a mass shooting not preventing. I then brought up the shooting at Pearl High where the asst. principal stopped the shooter before he went on to continue his killing at the the Junior High. You then made the claim that the shooting was already over and that nothing was "stopped" by the asst. principal.

I then provided you with a link that shows your statement to be dead wrong.

You've been pwned. Deal with it and move on.

 

You're being dishonest again. That isn't a different "version" of anything. It is merely an incomplete story. What you quoted aligns exactly with the CNN article that I linked. It simply omits the fact that Woodham was intending on going to the Junior High next. There would have to actually be something in one story that contradicts the other for it to be considered another "version".

 

How do you know? The media rarely gets facts like this correct - but a court transcript - that I could accept

But again this is ONE circumstance - and I was quoting 62 mass shootings in the US in the last 30 years from the Mojo article, which used the FBI criteria of 4 or more deaths - which is why THIS incident was not included. If we included all mass shootings, regardless of number of actual deaths we would see a vanishingly small number were stopped by armed civilians

And the increase in CCW, rather than stopping the killings seems to have accelerated the incidence

But why only look at stopping the mass shooters - would it not be more sensible to make it harder for people to start a shooting rampage in the first place?

Australia pre 1996 13 mass shootings in 18 years (using FBI criteria of more than four people dead) since then - NONE ( but I usually include the one at Monash Uni - which BTW was stopped by an UNARMED civilian)

If we expand the criteria for mass shootings to include those with fewer deaths we see there have been 18 mass shootings in 12 months in the USA

http://www.thenation.com/blog/171774/fifteen-us-mass-shootings-happened-2012-84-dead#

How many of these were stopped by CCW

 

of course the missing part of the stats is the number of assaults with various blunt and sharp objects would absolutely dwarf those of gun assaults, guns are much more lethal than blunt instruments...guns are also much more impersonal than actually coming into physical contact with the victim, so the kill is easier...

 

Gun control doesn't reduce violence .

 

banning semi automatics would be the solution...there is no practical reason for a civilian to own a semi...

appearance...just as there are millions of testosterone fueled nuts who insist on owning Pitt bulls why? for the image, "hey ! look at me I'm badass because I gotta badass dog that I can't control"... there are many great non lethal dogs around but the tough guys insist on Pitts, the attitude is wrong and dangerous...

that same attitude applies to weapons...a simple single shot rifles/shotguns that I used for hunting work every bit as well as the macho semi-auto dressed up versions...the dressed up types are military porn that appeal to psychos...

 

No, but it sure as shoot decreases the homicide rate

16 mass shootings in 12 months with a total of 88 dead - something is out of kilter there
http://www.thenation.com/blog/171774/fifteen-us-mass-shootings-happened-2012-84-dead#

 

Then how in the world do you explain the 500 deaths in Chicago ? If it sure as shoot.....

 

Their is no practical reason to own high proof liquor either ? Ban that too ?

 

on the same day as the Sandyhook shooting another nut went on a rampage in a school in China, some 20 kids were slashed and stabbed before the man was subdued none of the kids died, what was the survival rate in Sandyhook?...china only permits private ownerships of guns in extreme cases, generally farmers...

 

that's a logical analogy?...

 

and what number of mass shootings has Australia had since it changed the gun laws in 1998? zero I believe and in previous decade there were what 12-14?

 

Maybe we should ban people?

Same old crap, guns don't kill, people with guns kill. And, why do they need attack semi-automatic weapons? To hunt?

I wonder how many people a person with a hammer can kill in less time than it takes the police to arrive? 26?

 

Chicago , Chicago , and Chicago ....

 

How many children have been killed by high proof liquor?