America is not the worst when it comes to mass shootings?

I don't know that anything needs to be argued. It's kind of nice that we can point to this whenever some random foreigner wants to get uppity, but it doesn't make me feel any better about the frequency of shootings here at home.


France has more mass shootings then us. Maybe we should BAN guns like them and then we can have more mass shootings?

This is confusing.
 
If you see the list the top countries are countries that are at civil war or have some kind of religion war going on.
I don’t think those countries have a bunch of high school kids doing mass shootings on other kids.
Is mostly terrorism or religious causes
 
Not sure what brought on this rant but.

I've dealt with data most of my life in the nuclear word on a different level then most of these shit surveys.

If you know anything about it then you know full well how the results can be manipulated . You know shit in shit out. So over the years I have learned not to take any of this seriously unless I know a hell of a lot more about how and what went in. My example in the post was the claim there had been 18 school shooting this year which is a "lie" because of the way this anti 2nd organisation classified a school shooting.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/02/16/there-havent-been-18-school-shootings

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...1d91fcec3fe_story.html?utm_term=.5710d7602b6f

https://www.investors.com/politics/...18-school-shootings-this-year-not-even-close/


Also my distrust of this type of thing includes one that support things I support. Like the number of times guns are used in the US for self-defense a year. The NRA says 2.5 million and the Clinton study said about 1.5 million but both numbers are not fact just best guess using the data as they collected it by the means they used.

Yes the 2nd was intended to allow civilian the use of miltary weapons so they could be called to arms if needed. Over the years we have restricted that or infringed on that right and it has been excepted due to changes in arms and the courts.

I have to go to work but I will address your other points as they pertain to me as son as I have time.
If you have worked in data and know anything about epidemiology than you know should concede A LOT OF PRO GUNS RIGHTS STUDIES ARE EPIDEMIOLOGICALLY FLAWED!

2nd is not a protection for civilian use of MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS. It was meant as such but in the mid 1600s-late 1700s weapons both civ and mil were the same thing. Now the game has completely changed. If you can't accept that we are in a losing convo.

There is ZERO need for large caliber weapons with multi shot capabilities. None!

Final point if you know about data rarely does anyone check coefficients and no one but you me and one other person on shersog know what that even means so we have to take reporting at its base value. Problem is that base value in light of gun ownership is dangerous.

I'm pro gun 100% always have been always will be. There is no need on earth for a civilian to obtain, own, use, or carry a military type weapon. If you can't shoot a badging with a pink SW .38 and stop them in their tracks, you have no business owning a high powered, high caliber weapon at all anyway!
 
It'd questionable whether some of those countries should be considered Western.

Yeah.. I´m a bit confused. I would not call Albania to be a part of the western world. I mean, if a country are as corrupted as Albania and Macedonia, I would not call them western because they just happen to be in the European continent. And they certainly do not belong in the category of advanced nations as that site claims. And when did Russia become a western country? I would say South-Korea is more western than Putin land and borderline Serbia.
 
Also, nice cherry picked start date, reminds me of starting to count Muslim terror attacks on US soil from Sept. 12th, 2001.
 
"When statisticians explode"
Just getting sick of stupid Americans with zero critical thinking skills falling for weak arguments. Getting sick of the NRA with the smoking hot brunette saying things in an authoritative manner that gets weak pants country boys all hot in the anus! Getting sick of all the divisive bullshit.

This should be a non-issue. Kids died, kids have died, guns caused it. Don't bring up bikes, don't bring up gang violence those are other complicated issues. This is simple!

It's non-sense that adults are bickering over simple things because of simple bullishness!
 
If you have worked in data and know anything about epidemiology than you know should concede A LOT OF PRO GUNS RIGHTS STUDIES ARE EPIDEMIOLOGICALLY FLAWED!

2nd is not a protection for civilian use of MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS. It was meant as such but in the mid 1600s-late 1700s weapons both civ and mil were the same thing. Now the game has completely changed. If you can't accept that we are in a losing convo.

There is ZERO need for large caliber weapons with multi shot capabilities. None!

Final point if you know about data rarely does anyone check coefficients and no one but you me and one other person on shersog know what that even means so we have to take reporting at its base value. Problem is that base value in light of gun ownership is dangerous.

I'm pro gun 100% always have been always will be. There is no need on earth for a civilian to obtain, own, use, or carry a military type weapon. If you can't shoot a badging with a pink SW .38 and stop them in their tracks, you have no business owning a high powered, high caliber weapon at all anyway!

It was meant to allow civilians the ownership of any weapon but yes that has changed and restrictions are in place requiring a lot more to own certain types of weapons.

I have no problem with some restrictions like on fully auto or explosives and such.

However a semi auto is a semi auto and I don't support restrictions on them.

I will consider requirements that you be 21 to own certain weapons as it is now with handguns.

We will have to just disagree on that.

I hunted and shot competition for may years as well as trained in some "combat" courses with personal protection work.

As of now I don't own an ar or any thing like that but I support the right to own them the same as owning a mini 14.
 
Interesting date selection. I looked at the stats for post 2000, including not just shootings but all "rampage killers", and the US had way, way mass shooting fatalities per capita than France had in terms of terrorism and all other forms (including the ramming attacks and bomb attacks).
I'd be interested in seeing what events/definitions they used.
Using the "four or more people shot" definition of a mass shooting, you guys have mass shootings on average 9 out of 10 days.
But we have 5 times as many people as say germany
 
There are far more deaths when school kids walk or bike to school than there are school shooting deaths per year.

A life lost is sad no matter how you cut it but the lefties are sensationalising the news to fit their agenda.
To fit their sick agenda of less kids being shot at school. The hypocrisy!!!

I'm sure when ISIS was at its peak you were like "well people die anyway".
 
I'm sure when ISIS was at its peak you were like "well people die anyway".

s0o4MP1.gif


edit: It took me while to find out how to add a gif.(the option to add a file was not there like it should be) I´m glad i could give you Mutley instead of that boring smily I added before.

Great reply Tonni!
 
Last edited:
Serbia is 2nd on this list and is due to these two incidents

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velika_Ivanča_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Žitište_shooting

I see this as something different than what happens in the USA. Here you had two bitter old men going on a spree.

Norway is first because of Breivik which was actually a form of political terrorism.

I don't think you can really compare these things.

In America you have young people shooting other young people in schools.

The only way they can get the numbers low enough to make the US look in any way favourable is to play with the definition of "mass shooting".
If you use the broadest category of any shooting of 4 or more people, or the most restrictive category of school shooting, there's simply no argument that the US has a problem.
It's simply advocacy for no change, or less restrictive gun laws.
 
OK... the "Crime Prevention Research Center" was founded by it's current president John Lott, Fox News contributor and author of "More Guns, Less Crime".


Ha

This thread......

giphy.gif
 
Yes. I was comparing per capita.
What I saw was how many mass shootings there were on average not a per capita basis. Did you have a comment before I didn’t see
 
To fit their sick agenda of less kids being shot at school. The hypocrisy!!!

I'm sure when ISIS was at its peak you were like "well people die anyway".

They don't care about less kids dying at school, they simply want to ban guns and use kids as a proxy.

We are talking about the real world, people die because others are evil. There are around 51 million high school kids in America and even at 20 school shooting deaths a year we are talking about 0.00004% students being affected.

That number will never be zero, even with a ban on guns. It's not about a statistic of significance that should raise concerns, they simply disagree on principle.
 
What I saw was how many mass shootings there were on average not a per capita basis. Did you have a comment before I didn’t see

Same comment, first sentence. The "9 out of ten days" was just to underline exactly how frequently they occur in the US.
 
Back
Top