This is what the gun control law should be in the US.

I was pointing out the use of numbers from 1982 to 2017 minimizes the upward trend in mass shootings and does not represent the current reality. 2017 was the last hard number, I am sorry you don't like it. The gray area is interesting don't you think?

 

I'm sorry you don't like to look at the big picture - the fact you are forced to cherry-pick your information says all that need be said.

Only to those ignorant to the reality of the situation and find the need to rest their arguments on post hoc fallacies.
So please - tell us why -you- find it interesting.

 

Was the article being cited on the part of yourself, actually read by yourself prior to it being presented?

The NRA wouldn't give NPR an interview about its plans, but one of its representatives in Florida was quoted in the Tampa Bay Times last month saying the group would not support a version of red flag legislation there "until we see it has sufficient protections."


And that appears to be the sticking point. The NRA's support for red flag laws comes with the condition that there be high legal thresholds for temporary gun removals — higher than most gun control activists are calling for.


About a day after the NRA posted the video, negative reactions from supporters of gun rights forced it to add a clarifying note, saying the association did not support the kind of red flag laws that have already passed in other states. In 2014, California passed legislation allowing family members to ask judges to temporarily remove guns from a person who appears to pose a threat; in 2016, voters in Washington state approved a similar law.


"The NRA strongly opposed these laws because they do not protect due process rights. We will continue to oppose confiscation schemes such as these," the group wrote on its YouTube page.


The note goes on to say that red flag laws should "require the judge to make a determination of whether the person meets the state standard for involuntary commitment," and the removal of a gun must be accompanied by mental health treatment.

The above plainly states the NRA does not support these proposed "red flag laws" as they are currently drafted.

The article itself states that the FBI itself defines a mass shooting as being an incident where four people are killed, not counting the shooter. Therefore any incident that does not result in four people being killed does not count as a mass shooting.

Indeed it would not. The FBI is the chief law enforcement agency for the united states. Their definition counts, the lower standards of others do not.

Such still does not change the facts of the matter. If those injured but not killed are counted as mass shootings, then the city of Chicago has at least one mass shooting every single week.

 

Do be sure to note the documented increase during the gray area, indicating the law in question did nothing to address the matter.

 

Yes, look at the big picture. You could have used numbers from 1957 to 2017 and your statistics would be even more watered down but that does not show how mass shootings are trending up. That is a bigger picture.

 

You are confusing "mass murderer" with "mass shooting". The intent in a mass shooting is to kill everyone shot but some are lucky enough not to die. No matter how it is defined it is trending up.

 

The two differing terms are not being confused. Until such time that an official definition of what constitutes a mass shooting is set forth by the united states government, the definition utilized for mass murder will be utilized in its absence. As such, a mass shooting does not exist if less than four individuals are killed in the incident.

 

Dunno what to make of this article as suicides are at a 50 year high:


Suicide, at 50-year peak, pushes down US life expectancy
Source: AP

Suicides and drug overdoses pushed up U.S. deaths last year, and drove a continuing decline in how long Americans are expected to live.

Overall, there were more than 2.8 million U.S. deaths in 2017, or nearly 70,000 more than the previous year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Thursday. It was the most deaths in a single year since the government began counting more than a century ago.

The increase partly reflects the nation’s growing and aging population. But it’s deaths in younger age groups — particularly middle-aged people — that have had the largest impact on calculations of life expectancy, experts said.

“These sobering statistics are a wake-up call that we are losing too many Americans, too early and too often, to conditions that are preventable,” Dr. Robert Redfield, the CDC’s director, said in a statement.

The suicide death rate last year was the highest it’s been in at least 50 years, according to U.S. government records. There were more than 47,000 suicides, up from a little under 45,000 the year before.

Read more: https://apnews.com/de57909c5bcc4162b122948539ed9c6a







Yes, I know forum right wingers will now say BLAME OBAMA and find some excuse to attribute this to Democrats. Hopefully, however, the solution to the problem will be found soon.

 

Interesting stat:

 

Here's a picture.... your "trending up" is true... for 2015-2017... due to 3rd/4th deviation outliers.
2018 is certain to be significantly lower.
It's no wonder you don't want to look at the entire data set.

 

Oh.. I didn't see your explanation as to why you find the "Federal assault weapon ban" annotation interesting.
Well?

 

When mass shootings occur on the scale of Sandy Hook, LV, and Florida, the profit driven media capitalizes on the appalling numbers involved and propagates the controversy as long as possible... at least as long as it generates profit over other news. The more sensational, the greater the reporting, the greater the controversy, the longer a story has legs and makes for profit. One result is that when the idiom, ‘Mass Shooting’, is used, it generates an image that conflates large numbers of stranger victims with those categories classed as mass shooting that involve family killings, gangland shooting, criminals eliminating witnesses during commission of crimes, and other ‘Mass’ shootings recorded under that label when using the FBI’s definition. It evokes a distorted view of reality and risk when considering actual numbers and tends to impede understanding and a search for answers. To the political advantage of the left, the distortion provides them the means to ignore the differences in categories, various motives, and other elements to focus on the simplest commonality, guns. Given the Pavlovian response when the word ‘Mass’ shooting is used to evoke the image of the whacko wielding a ‘fully’ auto assault weapon with endless ammo mowing down crowds of people, the left pushes emotional responses to advocate anti gun rights solutions that capitalize on the evoked images despite vastly distorting perceptions of the actual risk in numbers to further their agenda. Meanwhile, elements such as contagion, social isolation, etc. are ignored as places to investigate for the wishful, easy, and perceived cause, that of guns...particularly those looking like full auto scary spiders.
The phenomena of mass shootings, by any definition and any category is far more complex. While I am not a huge fan of Wikipedia, the following provides a range of sources that show one size doesn’t fit all.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting
Back when I was in graduate school, I remember reading Alvin Tofler’s Future Shock in which he discusses those elements that will eventually result in such things as increased conflict, mass psychosis, increases in suicide, and far more. It is a book still worth reading and will provide a better picture and framework for trends we are observing today than focusing on the numbers and explanations the left distorts along with their solutions.

 

Consider this.

In fact, the U.S. Department of Interior announced in 2017 that firearms and ammunition manufacturers contributed a record $780 million in excise taxes in 2016 through the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Program.

 

The solution to the problem is to do nothing, and simply allow nature to take its course in this case. These individuals have concluded that they do not wish to continue existing, so their decision should be respected and they left to their own devices.

 

The catholic church helped some poor kids. They also protected lots of people who hurt a lot of kids. The former does not exempt responsibility for the latter

 

A better question would be why wouldn't firearms and ammunition manufacturers contribute?

 

Agreed.

 

"(FBI) defined mass murderer as someone who “kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location” (Krouse and Richardson, 2015). However, the government has never defined mass shooting as a separate category, and there is not yet a universally accepted definition of the term." https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/supplementary/mass-shootings.html
In other words, you are choosing to use mass murder as the definition of mass shooting although they are two different things?

 

Until such time that an official definition of what constitutes a mass shooting is set forth by the united states federal government, in order to provide clarity on the matter, what presently exists is what will be utilized.

 

Women attempt suicide more often then men but men are 3.5 times more successful because they use a gun. They are usually white guys and sometimes they take other people with them.

 

What a load of conspiracy theory bull. It's all for profit? "Mass shooting" is used because that is what it is. Sandy Hook was an appalling tragedy. It should have been big news. It is something we should not forget. It is something we should do everything in our power to try to prevent unless of course you have more self-serving interests.

 

You aren’t paying attention to what I wrote, nor did you spend any time reading the Wikipedia page or examine any of the sources it lists. Talk about self serving.

 

And...?
< 32% of women who commit commit suicide use a gun.

 

Oh.. I didn't see your explanation as to why you find the "Federal assault weapon ban" annotation interesting.
Well?

 

You don't really mean that.