Nails and bolts have a purpose other than a pressure cooker bomb component. Guns only kill people. That is their purpose. Of course we would ban bolts and nails if their only use was to killl people.
Yes. Correct.
One shooter. One vantage point. A safe distance from any resistance. Over 500 dead or maimed in less than an hour. An absolutely fantastic tool for producing carnage and one anybody should be able to own!
Again what law or laws can you pass tomorrow that will stop Crazy? I contend that no matter how many laws you put on the books, you take guns away from all law abiding gun owners who simply want to mind their own business. The Bad Guys by default don't obey the laws we have. You can't rely on the government to save you from everything. There is no legislation that can stop a Crazy guy if he is determined enough. If guns are not handy the crazies will find another means of killing. Look at the Boston bombers. They used those explosive backpack bombs full of nails and bolts. Should we ban the sale of nails and bolts from hardware stores cuz somebody might use it in a backpack bomb? I think a pressure cooker was involved too, so maybe we have to eliminate crock pots, no more roast beefs. If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night and you are totally unarmed. What do you do? Call 911 while hiding under the bed? Beg the violent Criminal for mercy while you are wanting for police to show up? When the police do show up, you then become a hostage. Or maybe consider educating yourself on how to operate a firearm. They have good firearm handling and safety courses just for that. Learn how to operate the one you have and be accurate with it, just have one and know how to use it just in case. Hopefully and more than likely you'll never need it. I think at some point people need to take responsibility for their immediate safety. But of course the Vegas-style shooting nobody could possibly be prepared for, where you have a guy up 30 floors shooting down on a crowd that's just insane. Most of this gun violence occurs in populated areas and gun free zones. Movie theaters, schools, night clubs. People who want to kill are by default cowards so they go to where they know they'll be Little Resistance and by the time the police got there they've already been shooting for a while unfortunately. Now if you go to a gun club where people pay money so they can shoot their rifles or do some skeet shooting, no gun violence happens at these places does it. Why not? Because everyone at a gun club is an armed, presumably law-abiding citizens. A person that wants to do a lot of killing isn't going to go someplace where he knows everybody is armed.
Nobody is even suggesting you can legislate against crazy. That's a rather weak argument, isn't it?
As far as the rest, your arguments quickly fall apart when looking at the stats.
Also speaks to the violent crime. The non-firearm homicide is only second to a country virtually without any guns. You can't deny the violent problem in the States. Not saying guns aren't a problem, but violence and crime in general are a problem here.
I guess after research, I don’t believe mass shootings should be the main focus. I think we should work more on suicide prevention and preventing gang growth. My home towns gang population continues to grow, and most of the fire arms in their incicdents are illegally obtained. I think focusing on these two things could bring the numbers down a lot
a Mass shooting is a shooting non gang related where more than 4 people are killed. There has been less than 5 of those this year.
US statistics on gun deaths include suicides.
Over 90% of gun deaths are performed with hand guns, this includes suicides and gang related incidents.
You have some errors in your statistics. Only counting mass shootings where more than 4 people die is going to skew the number low and not be accurate. You have to count shootings where at least 4 people are shot. Try this data https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data
Please don't peddle false statistics about our mass shootings problem in this country. You can also read the FBI active shooter report that was compiled for 2000 - 2013, which also has some very good information.
Other then that though, yeah, gun deaths are down from their peak a few decades ago.
From Pew:
The nation’s overall gun death rate has declined 31% since 1993. This total includes homicides and suicides, in addition to a smaller number of fatal police shootings, accidental shooting deaths and those of undetermined intent. For example, in 2014 there were 464 fatal police shootings, up from 333 in 2009. (Government data on fatal police shootings are also collected and reported by the FBI, though the agency acknowledges there are discrepanciesbetween federal and local law enforcement counts.)
The rate of nonfatal gun victimizations declined in a similar way to the gun death rate, with a large drop in the 1990s – 63% between 1993 and 2000. The decline since then has been more uneven. In 2014, there were 174.8 nonfatal violent gun victimizations per 100,000 people ages 12 and older.
Despite these trends, most U.S. adults think gun crimes have increased. In our 2013 survey, more than half (56%) of Americans said the number of gun crimes had gone up compared with 20 years ago. Another 26% said the number of gun crimes had remained the same, and just 12% said gun crimes had declined.
Again what law or laws can you pass tomorrow that will stop Crazy? I contend that no matter how many laws you put on the books, you take guns away from all law abiding gun owners who simply want to mind their own business. The Bad Guys by default don't obey the laws we have. You can't rely on the government to save you from everything. There is no legislation that can stop a Crazy guy if he is determined enough. If guns are not handy the crazies will find another means of killing. Look at the Boston bombers. They used those explosive backpack bombs full of nails and bolts. Should we ban the sale of nails and bolts from hardware stores cuz somebody might use it in a backpack bomb? I think a pressure cooker was involved too, so maybe we have to eliminate crock pots, no more roast beefs. If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night and you are totally unarmed. What do you do? Call 911 while hiding under the bed? Beg the violent Criminal for mercy while you are wanting for police to show up? When the police do show up, you then become a hostage. Or maybe consider educating yourself on how to operate a firearm. They have good firearm handling and safety courses just for that. Learn how to operate the one you have and be accurate with it, just have one and know how to use it just in case. Hopefully and more than likely you'll never need it. I think at some point people need to take responsibility for their immediate safety. But of course the Vegas-style shooting nobody could possibly be prepared for, where you have a guy up 30 floors shooting down on a crowd that's just insane. Most of this gun violence occurs in populated areas and gun free zones. Movie theaters, schools, night clubs. People who want to kill are by default cowards so they go to where they know they'll be Little Resistance and by the time the police got there they've already been shooting for a while unfortunately. Now if you go to a gun club where people pay money so they can shoot their rifles or do some skeet shooting, no gun violence happens at these places does it. Why not? Because everyone at a gun club is an armed, presumably law-abiding citizens. A person that wants to do a lot of killing isn't going to go someplace where he knows everybody is armed.
Nobody is even suggesting you can legislate against crazy. That's a rather weak argument, isn't it?
As far as the rest, your arguments quickly fall apart when looking at the stats.
I have to question these statistics. I don't think I've ever heard of a gun suicide in Ireland and I don't know where they got their information. Also amazed our homicide rate is so much higher than UK but I guess that could be explained by our small population
Doesn't the FBI define a mass shooting as more than four people getting killed?
I've always heard it as number of injured (presumably shot). So you can have a mass shooting with no deaths. But I agreed with your point, mass shootings are just the tip of the problem. Those killed in a mass shooting are something like 2% of gun deaths. That doesn't mean we don't do anything against it, I'm for regulations on assault rifles. I just don't get why its always the focus while 2 murders a day in Chicago goes ignored.
so if some inept dotard shot up a school with hundreds of people in it, and missed all of them, that wouldn't be classified as a mass shooting incident? bullet casings everywhere, terror reigns through the halls, but not a mass shooting. Hmmmm......
so if some inept dotard shot up a school with hundreds of people in it, and missed all of them, that wouldn't be classified as a mass shooting incident? bullet casings everywhere, terror reigns through the halls, but not a mass shooting. Hmmmm......
Yup, gotta tally 4 deaths first.
For example, there was a shooting outside my building last night. Usually there are dozens of people from the community hanging around the sidewalk at any given time of day. However, since they only grazed 2 by-standers, it's not a mass shooting.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
so if some inept dotard shot up a school with hundreds of people in it, and missed all of them, that wouldn't be classified as a mass shooting incident? bullet casings everywhere, terror reigns through the halls, but not a mass shooting. Hmmmm......
There has to be some clear definition if they are going to make it a stat. I'm guessing if that were to ever happen they may rethink the way they label it, but someone spraying bullets into a crowd at a school and not injuring anyone is extremely unlikely. Someone killing their ex girlfriend and new bf is just a double homicide, so as it stands a mass shooting is 4 or more injured. My understanding has always been injured and not killed, there have been mass shooting with zero deaths according to the FBI stats.
so if some inept dotard shot up a school with hundreds of people in it, and missed all of them, that wouldn't be classified as a mass shooting incident? bullet casings everywhere, terror reigns through the halls, but not a mass shooting. Hmmmm......
Yeah I just looked it up and the FBI does say a mass shooting is four or more people dead. So I'm guessing the anti-gun crowd skewed the meaning a little to make that graph look a lot more sinister.
so if some inept dotard shot up a school with hundreds of people in it, and missed all of them, that wouldn't be classified as a mass shooting incident? bullet casings everywhere, terror reigns through the halls, but not a mass shooting. Hmmmm......
Yeah I just looked it up and the FBI does say a mass shooting is four or more people dead. So I'm guessing the anti-gun crowd skewed the meaning a little to make that graph look a lot more sinister.
Mass murder is characterized by four or more victims as well.
There's a level of consistency there.
I'm curious to understand the reasoning behind 'four' as the benchmark?
so if some inept dotard shot up a school with hundreds of people in it, and missed all of them, that wouldn't be classified as a mass shooting incident? bullet casings everywhere, terror reigns through the halls, but not a mass shooting. Hmmmm......
Yeah I just looked it up and the FBI does say a mass shooting is four or more people dead. So I'm guessing the anti-gun crowd skewed the meaning a little to make that graph look a lot more sinister.
Mass murder is characterized by four or more victims as well.
There's a level of consistency there.
I'm curious to understand the reasoning behind 'four' as the benchmark?
What is the fbi equivalent in Canada called? And is the definition the same?
so if some inept dotard shot up a school with hundreds of people in it, and missed all of them, that wouldn't be classified as a mass shooting incident? bullet casings everywhere, terror reigns through the halls, but not a mass shooting. Hmmmm......
Yeah I just looked it up and the FBI does say a mass shooting is four or more people dead. So I'm guessing the anti-gun crowd skewed the meaning a little to make that graph look a lot more sinister.
Thats funny. I guess I never looked directly at FBI stats, come to think of it I was always reading articles that claimed to be quoting FBI stats. Guess they lied.
so if some inept dotard shot up a school with hundreds of people in it, and missed all of them, that wouldn't be classified as a mass shooting incident? bullet casings everywhere, terror reigns through the halls, but not a mass shooting. Hmmmm......
Yeah I just looked it up and the FBI does say a mass shooting is four or more people dead. So I'm guessing the anti-gun crowd skewed the meaning a little to make that graph look a lot more sinister.
Mass murder is characterized by four or more victims as well.
There's a level of consistency there.
I'm curious to understand the reasoning behind 'four' as the benchmark?
What is the fbi equivalent in Canada called? And is the definition the same?
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,721
I keep seeing black and white here. Not all of us who are not gun enthusiasts have said BAN ALL GUNS! Honestly, I wouldn't mind that, but I know that's not going to happen and I am willing to concede that and hope for some kind of compromise (and I hate compromise but sometimes it's necessary).
Are gun fans here are more concerned about keeping your guns and being able to have any you want than considering at least some reasonable restrictions that could help curb all the violent killing in America? Which matters more to you, keeping your guns and being able to have all kinds, or reducing violence in America? I think some of you may be in favor of some restrictions and better background checks but I'm really not sure.
And, OK, some of you didn't like the stats I posted but you will never convince me that violent gun death is a huge problem in America and more so than in most parts of the world.
And after all this time and 220 pages of discussion have we gotten any closer to a solution. Is that not at least a bit bothersome? Depressing is what I call it.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
so if some inept dotard shot up a school with hundreds of people in it, and missed all of them, that wouldn't be classified as a mass shooting incident? bullet casings everywhere, terror reigns through the halls, but not a mass shooting. Hmmmm......
Yeah I just looked it up and the FBI does say a mass shooting is four or more people dead. So I'm guessing the anti-gun crowd skewed the meaning a little to make that graph look a lot more sinister.
Mass murder is characterized by four or more victims as well.
There's a level of consistency there.
I'm curious to understand the reasoning behind 'four' as the benchmark?
Just a guess, but probably to rule out domestic situations where the ex and new partner are killed and then the shooter takes their own life. This does then make situations where 3 random people are killed get classified as just another typical murder though.
so if some inept dotard shot up a school with hundreds of people in it, and missed all of them, that wouldn't be classified as a mass shooting incident? bullet casings everywhere, terror reigns through the halls, but not a mass shooting. Hmmmm......
Yeah I just looked it up and the FBI does say a mass shooting is four or more people dead. So I'm guessing the anti-gun crowd skewed the meaning a little to make that graph look a lot more sinister.
Thats funny. I guess I never looked directly at FBI stats, come to think of it I was always reading articles that claimed to be quoting FBI stats. Guess they lied.
I don't think there's a lie being spread or anyone making mass shootings more sinister by the stats being shown. The stats are real. The only difference is how many were killed as opposed to shot by definition of mass shooter. If you don't find the fact that there have been more than 300 incidents where more than 4 people were shot in a single incident this year disturbing and out of control then that's some sinister thinking.
so if some inept dotard shot up a school with hundreds of people in it, and missed all of them, that wouldn't be classified as a mass shooting incident? bullet casings everywhere, terror reigns through the halls, but not a mass shooting. Hmmmm......
Yeah I just looked it up and the FBI does say a mass shooting is four or more people dead. So I'm guessing the anti-gun crowd skewed the meaning a little to make that graph look a lot more sinister.
Thats funny. I guess I never looked directly at FBI stats, come to think of it I was always reading articles that claimed to be quoting FBI stats. Guess they lied.
No, it's not skewed and it's not a big sinister plot.
The FBI does not define mass shooting. They do define mass killing as"murdering four or more persons during an event with no "cooling-off period" between the murders". Other research bodies have modified that to three or more persons dead, while others do include wounded and/or dead. Generally the definition does not include the perpetrator, where he dies also. Where other research bodies publish research, they often use FBI data.
Regardless, the people are still dead, so it's difficult to see how one can spin this as a lie or a sinister plot.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
There are many people who have saved their family’s and businesses because of guns. Many people rely on them to feed their families.
So there very very much is a debate.
I agree with the feeding your family debate, but any other argument doesn't make sense.
In 2014, the FBI reports there were only 224 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm. That same year, there were 7,670 criminal gun homicides. Guns were used in 34 criminal homicides for every justifiable homicide.
Intended victims of violent crimes engaged in self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 1.1 percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2013 and 2015.
Intended victims of property crimes engaged in self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 0.2 percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2013 and 2015.
When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.
And for those who think the above is jaded to be to anti gun.
* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. [2]
* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.[3]
* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.[4]
* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.[5]
* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).[6] And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."[7]
* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year. [8] Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."
so if some inept dotard shot up a school with hundreds of people in it, and missed all of them, that wouldn't be classified as a mass shooting incident? bullet casings everywhere, terror reigns through the halls, but not a mass shooting. Hmmmm......
Yeah I just looked it up and the FBI does say a mass shooting is four or more people dead. So I'm guessing the anti-gun crowd skewed the meaning a little to make that graph look a lot more sinister.
Thats funny. I guess I never looked directly at FBI stats, come to think of it I was always reading articles that claimed to be quoting FBI stats. Guess they lied.
I don't think there's a lie being spread or anyone making mass shootings more sinister by the stats being shown. The stats are real. The only difference is how many were killed as opposed to shot by definition of mass shooter. If you don't find the fact that there have been more than 300 incidents where more than 4 people were shot in a single incident this year disturbing and out of control then that's some sinister thinking.
I disagree with the first part. One of the articles I read was posted here within the last few days that said "according to the FBI...." then goes on to quote mass shootings. Not that it makes the incidents it less bad, but it clearly is misquoting data to push a point. I've read multiple articles in this week that talk about mass shooting victims, all included injuries of 4 or more and nearly all claimed to be using the FBI as a source. Not that it means we shouldn't do anything about it, but it is skewing or misrepresenting the data. I agree that its still disturbing.
so if some inept dotard shot up a school with hundreds of people in it, and missed all of them, that wouldn't be classified as a mass shooting incident? bullet casings everywhere, terror reigns through the halls, but not a mass shooting. Hmmmm......
Yeah I just looked it up and the FBI does say a mass shooting is four or more people dead. So I'm guessing the anti-gun crowd skewed the meaning a little to make that graph look a lot more sinister.
Thats funny. I guess I never looked directly at FBI stats, come to think of it I was always reading articles that claimed to be quoting FBI stats. Guess they lied.
I don't think there's a lie being spread or anyone making mass shootings more sinister by the stats being shown. The stats are real. The only difference is how many were killed as opposed to shot by definition of mass shooter. If you don't find the fact that there have been more than 300 incidents where more than 4 people were shot in a single incident this year disturbing and out of control then that's some sinister thinking.
I disagree with the first part. One of the articles I read was posted here within the last few days that said "according to the FBI...." then goes on to quote mass shootings. Not that it makes the incidents it less bad, but it clearly is misquoting data to push a point. I've read multiple articles in this week that talk about mass shooting victims, all included injuries of 4 or more and nearly all claimed to be using the FBI as a source. Not that it means we shouldn't do anything about it, but it is skewing or misrepresenting the data. I agree that its still disturbing.
Nope, not at all clear that the media is misquoting FBI stats to push a point. The FBI does collect this data, of course; they just don't use that term, but other people are free to use the term. The media may be misrepresenting it but the fact that that's your first conclusion says a lot.
Maybe post a link to an article that you think misrepresents the data an we can take a look.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
so if some inept dotard shot up a school with hundreds of people in it, and missed all of them, that wouldn't be classified as a mass shooting incident? bullet casings everywhere, terror reigns through the halls, but not a mass shooting. Hmmmm......
Yeah I just looked it up and the FBI does say a mass shooting is four or more people dead. So I'm guessing the anti-gun crowd skewed the meaning a little to make that graph look a lot more sinister.
Thats funny. I guess I never looked directly at FBI stats, come to think of it I was always reading articles that claimed to be quoting FBI stats. Guess they lied.
I don't think there's a lie being spread or anyone making mass shootings more sinister by the stats being shown. The stats are real. The only difference is how many were killed as opposed to shot by definition of mass shooter. If you don't find the fact that there have been more than 300 incidents where more than 4 people were shot in a single incident this year disturbing and out of control then that's some sinister thinking.
I disagree with the first part. One of the articles I read was posted here within the last few days that said "according to the FBI...." then goes on to quote mass shootings. Not that it makes the incidents it less bad, but it clearly is misquoting data to push a point. I've read multiple articles in this week that talk about mass shooting victims, all included injuries of 4 or more and nearly all claimed to be using the FBI as a source. Not that it means we shouldn't do anything about it, but it is skewing or misrepresenting the data. I agree that its still disturbing.
Nope, not at all clear that the media is misquoting FBI stats to push a point. The FBI does collect this data, of course; they just don't use that term, but other people are free to use the term. The media may be misrepresenting it but the fact that that's your first conclusion says a lot.
Maybe post a link to an article that you think misrepresents the data an we can take a look.
Maybe this will help clear up why there is such a misperception out there. Again, I don't think anyone is being misleading, but those referencing the data need to understand what it means.
Comments
Yes. Correct.
One shooter. One vantage point. A safe distance from any resistance. Over 500 dead or maimed in less than an hour. An absolutely fantastic tool for producing carnage and one anybody should be able to own!
US gun homicide rate has dropped since the 80s
US Gun suicide rate has gone up since the 80s
a Mass shooting is a shooting non gang related where more than 4 people are killed. There has been less than 5 of those this year.
US statistics on gun deaths include suicides.
Over 90% of gun deaths are performed with hand guns, this includes suicides and gang related incidents.
Please don't peddle false statistics about our mass shootings problem in this country. You can also read the FBI active shooter report that was compiled for 2000 - 2013, which also has some very good information.
Other then that though, yeah, gun deaths are down from their peak a few decades ago.
From Pew:
The nation’s overall gun death rate has declined 31% since 1993. This total includes homicides and suicides, in addition to a smaller number of fatal police shootings, accidental shooting deaths and those of undetermined intent. For example, in 2014 there were 464 fatal police shootings, up from 333 in 2009. (Government data on fatal police shootings are also collected and reported by the FBI, though the agency acknowledges there are discrepanciesbetween federal and local law enforcement counts.)
The rate of nonfatal gun victimizations declined in a similar way to the gun death rate, with a large drop in the 1990s – 63% between 1993 and 2000. The decline since then has been more uneven. In 2014, there were 174.8 nonfatal violent gun victimizations per 100,000 people ages 12 and older.
Despite these trends, most U.S. adults think gun crimes have increased. In our 2013 survey, more than half (56%) of Americans said the number of gun crimes had gone up compared with 20 years ago. Another 26% said the number of gun crimes had remained the same, and just 12% said gun crimes had declined.
But I agreed with your point, mass shootings are just the tip of the problem. Those killed in a mass shooting are something like 2% of gun deaths.
That doesn't mean we don't do anything against it, I'm for regulations on assault rifles. I just don't get why its always the focus while 2 murders a day in Chicago goes ignored.
www.headstonesband.com
For example, there was a shooting outside my building last night. Usually there are dozens of people from the community hanging around the sidewalk at any given time of day. However, since they only grazed 2 by-standers, it's not a mass shooting.
So I'm guessing the anti-gun crowd skewed the meaning a little to make that graph look a lot more sinister.
There's a level of consistency there.
I'm curious to understand the reasoning behind 'four' as the benchmark?
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2017/10/what_guns_can_you_legally_own_in_nj.html#incart_river_home
not sure.
www.headstonesband.com
http://www.comedycentral.com.au/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/videos/john-oliver-on-gun-control-in-the-us-vs-australia#gun-control-whoopdedoo
Are gun fans here are more concerned about keeping your guns and being able to have any you want than considering at least some reasonable restrictions that could help curb all the violent killing in America? Which matters more to you, keeping your guns and being able to have all kinds, or reducing violence in America? I think some of you may be in favor of some restrictions and better background checks but I'm really not sure.
And, OK, some of you didn't like the stats I posted but you will never convince me that violent gun death is a huge problem in America and more so than in most parts of the world.
And after all this time and 220 pages of discussion have we gotten any closer to a solution. Is that not at least a bit bothersome? Depressing is what I call it.
So there very very much is a debate.
The FBI does not define mass shooting. They do define mass killing as "murdering four or more persons during an event with no "cooling-off period" between the murders". Other research bodies have modified that to three or more persons dead, while others do include wounded and/or dead. Generally the definition does not include the perpetrator, where he dies also. Where other research bodies publish research, they often use FBI data.
Regardless, the people are still dead, so it's difficult to see how one can spin this as a lie or a sinister plot.
- In 2014, the FBI reports there were only 224 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm. That same year, there were 7,670 criminal gun homicides. Guns were used in 34 criminal homicides for every justifiable homicide.
- Intended victims of violent crimes engaged in self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 1.1 percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2013 and 2015.
- Intended victims of property crimes engaged in self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 0.2 percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2013 and 2015.
When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense.http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable17.pdf
And for those who think the above is jaded to be to anti gun.
* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. [2]
* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.[3]
* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.[4]
* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.[5]
* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).[6] And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."[7]
* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year. [8] Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."
https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htmNot that it makes the incidents it less bad, but it clearly is misquoting data to push a point. I've read multiple articles in this week that talk about mass shooting victims, all included injuries of 4 or more and nearly all claimed to be using the FBI as a source.
Not that it means we shouldn't do anything about it, but it is skewing or misrepresenting the data.
I agree that its still disturbing.
Nope, not at all clear that the media is misquoting FBI stats to push a point. The FBI does collect this data, of course; they just don't use that term, but other people are free to use the term. The media may be misrepresenting it but the fact that that's your first conclusion says a lot.
Maybe post a link to an article that you think misrepresents the data an we can take a look.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/04/the-squishy-definition-of-mass-shooting-complicates-media-coverage/?utm_term=.0afa15025993