DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Mass Shootings Continued..

I think that specifying how many people on average are killed by each weapon, pistols verses assault style rifles, is a critical piece of understanding the situation and not a manipulation of data. As a matter of fact I think excluding it is a manipulation of data. The omission of breaking things down into specifics and instead using raw data in and of itself is what many see as those who are creating a narrative.

A mass shooting is defined as four or more people being wounded and or killed. That doesn't really address the mass casualty incidents we have been discussing and with that definition it makes it quite easy to muddy the waters with far lesser incidents.

I am sure congress is busy studying the statistics and having discussions on how to fix the problem. Thats why they exist ... right?

Basically mass shooters are all suicidal. That is where we should start to look at the statistics.

There certainly is a case to be made. I don't know if the data supports that, but one would think there is a lot of mental issues involved.

do you mean the 14 higher body counts that happened this year?

Thats pretty interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Something else to consider.

If I am remembering correctly, didn't the Clinton administration get an assault weapons ban?
Didn't that ban subsequently expire and not get renewed?

It would be interesting to look at the data for number of mass shootings, nimber of people killed, and the weapon used during that ban and subsequent to it's ending.

I have no idea what those numbers will show (or where to even begin looking for them). But I am pretty sure thise numbers would be interesting.

Brady Bill 1994-2004.

And yes, statistically less mass shootings, not sure it it was because of the time due to culture, or an absence of AR/AK style arms.

It is from the senate, so there may be a slant, but the sources are included.

Brady Bill and Mass Shootings.

Another one that references politifact.

Statesman

Conversation Article

I will also say that there should be better definition as to the underlying cause associated with a mass shooting.

Let's try some. Those that I can recall from memory, I will try.

My premise, is that there are generally two broad categories, when victims are know or unknown to the shooter (discriminate or indiscriminate), and some underlying themes appear with the indiscriminate shootings.

Discriminate

Domestic Dispute (victims are known to shooter)
Workplace Dispute (victims are known to shooter)... Louisville, Walmart in Va.
School Discriminate (victims are known to shooter)

Indiscriminate

School Indiscriminate (victims unknown) Nashville, Uvalde, Sandy Hook, Columbine, Parkland Virginia Tech, MSU etc.
Ethnic/Race Indiscriminate (Walmart in El Paso, Buffalo)
Religious Indiscriminate (Charleston, Texas, Pittsburgh, Wisconsin)
Sexual Indiscriminate (Pulse, Colorado)
Public Place Indiscriminate (Las Vegas, Aurora)

What does it mean, people should be concerned about a workplace shooting or indiscriminate (random) shootings at school, church, gay nightclubs, or really any public place.


The information above from the violence project is pretty good and should be updated.

Giving just a little thought to this, so I am open for constructive criticism.

Seems to me that in addition to the number of people shot, there should be a motivation component.
I think people will argue that only number should count because "mass shooting" duh.

But there is a huge difference between a bunch of people being shot in the commission of a crime. A robbery, the directed shooting of a particular individual which would include gang shootings and the shooting of a bunch of people for the sheer indiscriminate point of killing/injuring as many people as possible.

This is not to suggest that gang shootings etc are not significant issues, but rather to delineate that they are a different issue.
I hate when people get hung up on the nomenclature. That the only support for their standpoint is that someone poorly named the event.

I posted all kinds of articles that had factual information about the statistical information on these things. People don't bother to read them and then shoot down my theories because they don't align w/their own. Keep your heads in the sand.

There's a lot of evil in the world... and a lot from both sides... especially on the extremes...

Now you get it.

There is nothing illogical about my hate. It was earned by the lunacy from the right. There is nothing blind about my hate as I saw everything the right has done, especially J6. But the rest of it, you almost got right. So good on you for your progress. Another year or two working with Pit and you might get a seat at the big kids table.

Yes, of course, but that doesn't put the onus of our current woes where it belongs... Squarely on the right. I mean I'm all for a kumbaya moment with the right when they oust the traitorous fascist MAGA Leadership to a sufficient degree as to be proof of a return to a more moderate SANE right. Then we can hug it out, but until then, the entire right is the problem.

So you don't think anything the left has done is wrong?? come on... both sides are crap... The leader of the right (trump) is a narcissi.... while the leader of the left (Biden) is a bumbling idiot who is being controlled by wokism...

to blame only one side is just blinded bias....

Apples and oranges. Otherwise, I would agree that both sides do stupid and bad things from time to time. But GOPers are off the hook! They let the crazies act nuts while they defend it. So call me Mr. Wokeism because I say screw the right and the horse they rode in on. Down with everything MAGA and down with the far or ALT-right. They've gone too far and need to pay a price. A harsh price. And the hate groups and fascist freaks need to be driven back into their holes. You can disagree all you want, this is how I feel. And I'm sure I'm not alone, even if others don't just say it outright. Progressives are now the lifeblood of the left, and most like me don't want anything to happen to regular Trump supporters, just moving on will suffice. But the majority feel strongly that certain leaders on the right need to pay a price for their many bad actions. And I doubt we will ever heal the divide without the right moving a little to the left. I don't see that happening anytime soon. I don't see those GOPers ever accepting responsibility for their actions, or working to undo the damages they've done... NOPE, doubling down every day on hate is all they can do. So screw em all.

You don't think trump is more of a bumbling idiot than biden?

They hate Biden, but he's on track for the most historically successful presidency since FDR, legislatively. I'd take that over every other POTUS of my lifetime. And yes, I think he's a bumbling old dolt at times, but I think he's more than competent and a good man for the task. I'll vote for him again if he runs again and is the general Dem candidate. TBH, I hope Biden hands the reigns of dem party to Gavin Newsome, and he serves the next eight years. And at this point, the party of traitors is bound to put out another MAGA brand cancer, so many who want no more of that will give the dems those eight years. It can be an easy lesson and end of conflict now or a steady beating for the next 12-20 years. The choice belongs to the right. And the younger generations have shown strong progressive activism to the point that all the talking heads say they are predominantly hardcore left. So when the right predictably spends the next twenty years doubling down on the dumb and dirty MAGA brand, it will eventually abandon those efforts or continue bleeding supporters over self-inflicted consequences of their own actions. It's becoming a pattern; that's who they are. The GOPer core base supporting whoever they put out is now down to 25% of likely voters. You can't keep running toxic candidates and survive the long term with those losses.

You litteraly yelled MAGA then tried to squeeze it into yor "rational". Blind, illogical hate. It is you ranting, it has absolutely nothing to do with anything other than you getting to remind us how much you hate anything you don't agree with.

I'll stay at the adult table thank you.

Can anyone define to me what Woke or Wokism actually is? And why its bad? ..... My thought was that any individual that takes a thought or idea too far is the problem, not the thought or idea itself.

Thanks for sharing this but I don't see where the 90% number comes from.

it depends on truth vs an agenda.

Obama used the term a few years back and basically because it was him saying it, conservatives or MAGA decided it couldn't be good, Just or Right. That despite the textbook definition of the word.

Apparently once faced with the true definition, they had to change it to a more negative one. One that cast the Left as weak with poor judgement.


It's one of those things that you gotta make of it what you wish.

I posted it because it has a lot raw data and you can run queries against it. I was not defending anyone's numbers, sorry for that confusion.

You need to go back a liiiiiitle bit further than Obama for the term "Woke", it's origins, and both its evolved meaning(s) and bastardization by all sides political.

I thought you were voting Fetterman in 2024? You were raving for weeks that he would be a great president. "Fetterman or Katie Porter"

Biden is the best president in your lifetime... best since FDR... and now you want Gavin Newsome?


I say stick to your guns. Biden runs again but replaces Kamala with Fetterman... that way we know the country will be in good hands.

Newsome is an idiot. Sorry, but it’d be hard for me to get behind that guy. That said, if he’s the nominee I’d likely have to hold my nose as I’m sure anyone the GOP rolls out would be far worse.

I certainly don't agree with many of OCD's rants. But from all of the evidence I've seen thus far it seems what you meant here is "the adults I agree with table".

People who think differently than you, or me for that matter, doesn't mean they aren't adults.

Okay, Frankz, whatever you need to think. I don't care in the slightest about your opinions of me. You're on the wrong side of history; you and the rest of the right. Please don't pretend you're not a right-winger. Your ilk is easy to spot.

I pretty much say that both trump and biden are bumbling idiots. But there does seem to be a stark contrast if one stops to think about it. I have never actually seen a president who is an expert on everything. Some are more well versed on many topics concerning our nation than others but none are experts on everything. So a president must have advisors that he's willing to listen to in order to learn and make decisions about things he's not well versed on. When you appoint a person to run the Department of Education who is known not to support public education that's not what you're doing. When you appoint a former oil lobbyist to run the Department of Energy, you're not doing that. When you surround yourself with yes men you aren't doing that.

Now on to your wokism comment. What is your description of wokism? Much of what I've seen is anyone that thinks people outside their views of what's right, moral or they disagree with deserve the same rights as everyone else is considered "woke". We see it when you support the LGBTQ community. You see it now in school boards across the country where if a parent thinks something offends their standards no parent should be given the choice for it to be taught to their children either. You know "If I'm antiwoke every child in my childens school will be forced into being antiwoke too!"

Do I think it goes too far sometimes and can get over the top? Yes I do. But exactly what is your description of "wokism"?

Frankz, you were never invited to that table. And even though I know how you took that, it was really referring to how relatively new you are to the conversation. We've seen dozens of guys like you come and go.

Pit, I just can't take him seriously enough to even swat him for taking shots. So there is zero fun in our exchanges for me. All I see is Blah blah, guilt trip, blah blah, pitiful attempt after pitiful attempt to shut me down... His posts remind me of arch's most of the time. The right, or whatever he says he considers himself, sure got an ankle-biter-like diehard in him. And after reading at least 10% of his 2300 posts, I don't know what he stands for or what his actual politics are. Pit, you seem to know him. Maybe you could enlighten me. Yawn... I have no desire to know him like you.

Not so sure Fetterman is going to finish his term. I'm not bashing him. I feel for him. He's a good dude, but his ongoing health issues will end his career, IMO. I won't entertain the right bashing him either because that's deplorable behavior. Nobody controls their health when their body fails them. It's sad to see.

As for me talking about candidates, I would prefer a younger POTUS, but Biden has done an excellent job. I would not care to see Kamala be the candidate. She has done well, but I don't see her in the role. But I do think she'd make a great AG or even Secretary of State. Short term future, Newsome checks all the boxes. And he says all the right things for the left, has a decent track record, and I'd love to see the back-and-forth between him and Don Jr. That said, I'd be lying if I didn't point out that he has his flaws. I don't get how he could have politics like mine and be married to a woman like Kimberly Guilfoyle unless she just went nuts and completely changed on him. Love makes people do strange crap, but at minimum, it makes his relationship judgment suspect.

I'm just a person who thinks ignoring something can never solve anything. If we never have discussions with those who disagree with us all we have is confirmation bias. That's the same reason I don't watch FOX News or MSNBC. There are certainly posters I disagree with that I tend to brush off more than I do Frank. And there is a reason for that. Some just yell buzz phrases and have a problem engaging. And yes Frank and I get down in the ditch often times. I would like to lessen that. But your sentiment seems to be that anyone who disagrees with you is someone you don't wish to know.

I'm not that way at all. Throughout my life most of my friends haven't shared all of my political views. But then we didn't base our friendships on each others politics. Of course they weren't extremists either.

But unlike yourself I don't fit into a political box even though some try to dismiss my views claiming that I do. I'll give you a couple of quick examples.

Gun control. I'm am against a ban on assault weapons. I am however in favor of limiting the number of rounds a magazine holds. That's not nearly far enough for a far left progressive but too far for those on the far right.

I'm for a parents rights that their child not to be taught CRT. I'm against parents who place pressure on and lawmakers who prohibit it being taught in schools. I think that all parents have a choice whether their child are taught such things or not. It would be very easy to make it an elective class which a parent can sign off on as to whether their child takes such a class or not. But those who don't want their child to take such a class are taking the rights away from those who do. Once again that's not going far enough for far left progressives but going too far for the far right.

I understand you do not share a lot of my views. And I don't expect you or anyone else to. But if all I wished to do is hear what I agree with I might as well go into the mountains and yell. Then the only thing I would hear is an echo of my own voice. I'm simply not built that way. Those who don't like to engage claim I'm trying to fight, bully and oppose anyone who disagrees with me. And that's an easy out to dismiss opposing voices. But unless we engage with those that have differing views than ourselves there actually is no discussion.

There are a lot of posters on here that are intelligent and can at least sometimes for the most part engage in discussions. While you may not see Frank that way I do. I most likely see a lot of posters who do not share my views that way which you may not.

But there's a difference in how people are wired. As for myself I see this place for what I think it is. A message board. This forum is designated strictly for politics. As such you will have rhetoric posted from both sides. I'm not a person who gets worked up about the things that get posted on here. I don't get angry or lose control about what others post. I don't take it as personal attack. As we have seen and witnessed, some others do. Some to the point of losing their ever loving minds.

And let me explain this to you. GM and I have very different political views. Sometimes we go back and forth on here. The thing is I know GM. I know what a wonderful person he is. I know what a wonderful family he has. And I'd be willing to bet you he would give the shirt off his back to help someone. I consider him a very good friend. Because I don't allow someone's politics to determine who I think they are. I have also met Peen. I think he's a very nice guy. He's very considerate, kind and friendly. Once again I don't permit our difference in politics determine whether I like him or not or shape my opinion of who he is as a person.

As I said, people are wired differently. I think it's healthy to engage with people who think differently than myself. And actually sometimes looking at things from a different perspective can help you to get a better understanding of things. But to each their own.

Oh yes, of course. But what the right seems to be,,,NO,,, IS responding to is Obama. I don't know the exact year that the term woke was first coined, but it was years and years ago, I think well in excess of 50 years ago....

The original meaning was a woke person was one that is aware. Now it means whatever the Right wants it to mean so they can pick on it and use it as a rallying cry. When someone calls me woke, I say think you.,

Sorry I misunderstood. Well, perhaps Superbowldawg can show where he got that stat. Frankly, I don't think he's close to correct.

By the way, if this site is left leaning and antigun and you think they are pretty good, I have to ask, are we having a break through moment

Here are some excerpts from an article you can read in it's entirety at the link provided..................

Perpetrators of many of the deadliest shootings in modern American history—including in Las Vegas, Orlando, Sandy Hook Elementary School, Sutherland Springs, El Paso, Robb Elementary School, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Aurora, and Dayton—used assault weapons equipped with large-capacity magazines.

Wounds caused by assault weapons are more severe and lethal than wounds caused by other firearms, and, particularly when paired with large capacity magazines, assault weapons can injure more people more quickly.

Assault weapons have been used in the seven deadliest mass shootings in the last decade.
An analysis of public mass shootings resulting in four or more deaths found that more than 85% of such fatalities were caused by assault rifles.2

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/hardware-ammunition/assault-weapons/

Another fact I find to be very important.

Over twice as many people are killed when mass shootings involve an assault weapon.

Mass shooting incidents with four or more people killed where the shooter used an assault rifle resulted in an average of 2.4 times more people killed and 24 times more people wounded compared to incidents where the shooter did not use an assault rifle.

https://everytownresearch.org/mass-shootings-in-america/

I will tackle the topic of woke with some my own thoughts.

Woke is a fundamental belief that the statement that "all men were created equal" applies to every citizen in this country.

Woke is also a belief that our laws and telling of history have been enacted/told through the lens of legislators/historians who too often present information from the perspective of the majority (e.g white male) viewpoint, and this history/viewpoint often leave minorities and other "disenfranchised or less than equal" groups (race/sex/non-Christian religion) as ignored or discriminated against.

So when we see laws and actions that overtly or inadvertently result in a less than equal status, that is something that requires action.

Think about the crack cocaine laws of a few years ago, or some of the implementation of three strikes laws. Or the 1619 project, or Critical Race Theory, or book banning, (e.g. removing a book about Jackie Robinson), or the disproportional killing of black people because they are black.. etc. etc...

So if that makes me woke, so be it.

Where I fall off and can't understand is the pronoun thing. I will just say that is weird, and confusing. I don't think it is appropriate to use generic pronouns and will call people that I believe to be male (he/him) or female (she/her) and not they/them. To do so to me is just silly and avoids the underlying fact that there are males and females in the world. Mr, Ms, and Mrs are next, and I don't get that.Most every language in the world has a masculine/feminine syntax and I see no reason to change.

To add I wouldn't have wanted boys who identify as female to be using the restroom with with my daughter when she was in school nor my granddaughter when she was in school. I don't like the idea of transgender athletes gaining an advantage over female athletes because they identify themselves as female. I certainly feel people have every right to identify themselves as a different gender than they were born. I just don't feel they have the right to inflict that belief in a manner that disadvantages others. We all have choices in life but for every choice there are consequences. Sometimes those consequences are good and sometimes they are bad.

For the most part they present data, they don't indulge in a lot of the cherry picking that Bloomberg and his paid lackeys engage in. They do still have a bias, but it is more subdued.

I don’t understand the restroom thing either. Most restaurants here are configured for single use, with no urinal. A bit gross in my opinion.. That just does not work at a large venue, but I guess the van use the family or another single use room.