Mass Shootings the last six months

[Townsend]

What I give a crap about is finding a legitimate way to reduce the occurrence of mass shooting events.

I don't need any more of your crap.  I have enough of your crap already.

So you're back in the "we".  Welcome.

I couldn't give you the crap anyway.

[Red Arrow]

So you're back in the "we".  Welcome.
I couldn't give you the crap anyway.

If you stop moving the goal post, I could give you an answer.

[Ed W]

Here's an interesting set of homicide statistics:

It's not just the guns
America has a violent culture, too, with deep roots in history
December 18, 2012 12:06 am
 
By Gwynne Dyer

The second-highest rate of gun ownership in the world is in Yemen, a largely tribal, extremely poor country. The highest is in the United States, where there are almost as many guns as people: around 300 million guns for 311 million people.

But here's another interesting statistic: In the past 25 years, the proportion of Americans who own guns has fallen from about one in three to only one in five. However, the United States, unlike Yemen, is a rich country, and the average American gun owner has four or five firearms. Moreover, he or she is utterly determined to keep them no matter what happens.

...Half the firearms in the entire world are in the United States. The rate of murders by gunfire in the United States is almost 20 times higher than the average rate in 22 other populous, high-income countries where the frequency of other crimes is about the same. There is clearly a connection between these two facts, but it is not necessarily simple cause and effect.

Here's one reason to suspect that it's not that simple: The American rate for murders of all kinds -- shooting, strangling, stabbing, poisoning, pushing people under buses, etc. -- is seven times higher than it is in those other 22 rich countries. It can't just be guns.



http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/its-not-just-the-guns-666789/

Dyer goes on to give her idea on why gun violence is higher here, but I didn't include it.  In a nutshell, she says that democracy came too early to the US.  I didn't include it because there's no way to use a premise like that as the foundation for a solution to the problem.

[Gaspar]

Here's an interesting set of homicide statistics:

It's not just the guns
America has a violent culture, too, with deep roots in history
December 18, 2012 12:06 am
 
By Gwynne Dyer

The second-highest rate of gun ownership in the world is in Yemen, a largely tribal, extremely poor country. The highest is in the United States, where there are almost as many guns as people: around 300 million guns for 311 million people.

But here's another interesting statistic: In the past 25 years, the proportion of Americans who own guns has fallen from about one in three to only one in five. However, the United States, unlike Yemen, is a rich country, and the average American gun owner has four or five firearms. Moreover, he or she is utterly determined to keep them no matter what happens.

...Half the firearms in the entire world are in the United States. The rate of murders by gunfire in the United States is almost 20 times higher than the average rate in 22 other populous, high-income countries where the frequency of other crimes is about the same. There is clearly a connection between these two facts, but it is not necessarily simple cause and effect.

Here's one reason to suspect that it's not that simple: The American rate for murders of all kinds -- shooting, strangling, stabbing, poisoning, pushing people under buses, etc. -- is seven times higher than it is in those other 22 rich countries. It can't just be guns.



http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/its-not-just-the-guns-666789/

Dyer goes on to give her idea on why gun violence is higher here, but I didn't include it.  In a nutshell, she says that democracy came too early to the US.  I didn't include it because there's no way to use a premise like that as the foundation for a solution to the problem.

Ed,
We have far more access to violence than most other countries, and that "access" is not typically attached to horror, sorrow, or disgust.  The average American child will watch 8,000 murders on TV before finishing elementary school, and the number of violent acts seen on TV by age 18 is 200,000.  They become calloused and emotionally detached from what they are viewing.  The American entertainment industry finds it necessary to continuously elevate the level of violence to sell more movies and TV shows.  With hundreds of channels to choose from, I can turn on the TV right now, and within a minute find a murder, rape, or beating.
http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html

What we are doing to our children is preparing them to act out violence with a sense of romance and honor.

So I went digging:

I figured there would be plenty of statistics to support the fact that we are becoming a more violent society with a higher degree of gun violence committed by kids. Well, I'm delighted to say that I am apparently wrong.  My initial assumption is obviously flawed, however while I still contend that violent entertainment is damaging to children, I must admit that according to the statistics, we are actually seeing a very significant decline. Not sure why, but all violent crime, especially that committed with guns, and committed by teens and young adults has declined markedly, and continues to trend down.  In fact, it's less than a quarter of what it was just 20 years ago.


http://www.bjs.gov/



Now here's something strange, I pulled this report (above) at about 8 am for 1993-2011 but because of the page margins I set it only goes to 2004, so I went back and attempted to pull it again in landscape, but the Department of Justices BJS site kept incurring an error, and finally went down completely.  So I called, and they told me they are experiencing a massive amounts of traffic resulting in DoS.  As soon as they are back up again I'll run the report that takes us to 2011, but you get the point.

It seems that our perception of violent crime, including gun crime is very different from the reality of the situation.  

No amount of violent crime is justified, and nothing can soften the blow of what happened last week, nor should it, but whatever we are doing to stem violent crime and gun crime seems to be effective.  It's probably an amalgam of many things, many laws, and many changing attitudes.  

[Gaspar]

OK, DOJ is back up.  Here is a link to the full report in excel that we can do some analysis with:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/y7z5k0xtztt5vh1/NVAT_Report_20-Dec-12_10-37-23AM.xls

[Gaspar]

Just looking at teens and young adults, this is what the data looks like.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Ed,
We have far more access to violence than most other countries, and that "access" is not typically attached to horror, sorrow, or disgust.  The average American child will watch 8,000 murders on TV before finishing elementary school, and the number of violent acts seen on TV by age 18 is 200,000.  They become calloused and emotionally detached from what they are viewing.  The American entertainment industry finds it necessary to continuously elevate the level of violence to sell more movies and TV shows.  With hundreds of channels to choose from, I can turn on the TV right now, and within a minute find a murder, rape, or beating.

What we are doing to our children is preparing them to act out violence with a sense of romance and honor.

I figured there would be plenty of statistics to support the fact that we are becoming a more violent society with a higher degree of gun violence committed by kids. Well, I'm delighted to say that I am apparently wrong.  My initial assumption is obviously flawed, however while I still contend that violent entertainment is damaging to children, I must admit that according to the statistics, we are actually seeing a very significant decline. Not sure why, but all violent crime, especially that committed with guns, and committed by teens and young adults has declined markedly, and continues to trend down.  In fact, it's less than a quarter of what it was just 20 years ago.

Now here's something strange, I pulled this report (above) at about 8 am for 1993-2011 but because of the page margins I set it only goes to 2004, so I went back and attempted to pull it again in landscape, but the Department of Justices BJS site kept incurring an error, and finally went down completely.  So I called, and they told me they are experiencing a massive amounts of traffic resulting in DoS.  As soon as they are back up again I'll run the report that takes us to 2011, but you get the point.

It seems that our perception of violent crime, including gun crime is very different from the reality of the situation.  

No amount of violent crime is justified, and nothing can soften the blow of what happened last week, nor should it, but whatever we are doing to stem violent crime and gun crime seems to be effective.  It's probably an amalgam of many things, many laws, and many changing attitudes.
 

I read a paper on this several years ago that hypothesized a connection between violence/violent crimes and the availability of easily ingested (soluble?) lead.

We saw increases in violent crime from sometime in the early 20th century - say 1930 or so...+/- 5 or 10 years....or 1940's - ish.  All those decades corresponding very closely to a significant rise in the use of gasoline containing tetraethyl lead.  When the lead started disappearing - late 70's through the early 80's, the violent crime kind of stabilized and since then (your date was 1992, which is about when a new generation with minimal lead exposure would start to reach teen years), violent crime has gone down.

This is a VERY tough association to verify, but it certainly looks at a long term and the pattern is intriguing.  Wouldn't surprise me if it were true - haven't heard anything recently, but that would certainly take some of the wind out of the gun controllers sails.  Just like if we got some sanity in our drug laws, so we could take the "drug profit" motive out of the violence/crime equation.

[heironymouspasparagus]

12/11/12 Happy Valley, OR – Shopping Mall
Dead: 3
Suicide: Yes
Wounded: 1
Mentally Ill: Unknown
Body Armor: Yes
Extended Magazines: Unknown
Assault Rifle: Yes (AR15)


Three mass killings with assault weapons leading to 43 dead and 61 wounded
Two mass killings without assault weapons leading to 13 dead and 11 wounded

It's time for these guns (and body armor and extended magazines) to go away. It may not stop all mass shootings, but it would greatly cut down the number of dead and injured.

Then it's time to address hate groups and mental illness to try and stop these events before they happen.
 

I saw a note about how Australia had a massacre, passed a gun ban, and no more massacres...for the last couple of years.  How lame an association can one get - there is NO valid cause/effect association there whatsoever.  

That is just ignorant, knee jerk reaction, because - IF THERE WERE - the ability to make such an association, then the passing of Norway's main gun laws, the most recent in 2009, would indicate that PASSING restrictions on "assault weapons" is what leads to a massacre...like the one they had in 2011 where a guy made a fertilizer bomb, killed 8 and wounded 209.  THEN went on an assault weapon rampage, ending up killing total of 77, and wounding another 105 or so.  

The whole focus on "assault weapons" is disingenuous, false, and is strictly a political ploy to get a "foot in the door" toward getting rid of guns.  (Ever read any of the Brady organization bullspit?)


The Oregon mall shooting has had an amazing array of stories surrounding it.  One says that the gunman "may" have heard police sirens and then shot himself just then(1)....what kind of ignorant carp is that?  Oh, CNN...sorry...silly question...  And does anyone believe the sheriff's office arrived one minute after the call came in?  Geez....

Slate proposes avoiding knee jerk reactions and let's find out the facts. (2)

And a guy who was there - feet from the action - with concealed carry may have had an effect on the gunman when he pulled his firearm out and brandished it. (3)

What are the odds that a guy like this is gonna get scared by some sirens several minutes away and just give up right then and kill himself?  Yeah...sounds right to me.

Did the armed guy scare him?  Who knows - seems like a stretch.  We are never gonna know what went on in his mind, but it sure wasn't the cops - he would have expected them to react/arrive no matter what.  These things are way more complicated.  It is stupid to jump to these "more gun control conclusions."  Especially since we have direct, incontrovertible indications that more armed people are associated with states/cities that have lower violent crime rates along with concealed carry.

And the two places that are MOST notorious for keeping people from even having guns in their homes - Chicago and Washington, DC - are the ones that have INCREASING violent crime rates at exactly the same time it's going down everywhere else!!  There is NO association possible with Chicago and DC to decreased lead levels in the environment.  How about criminalized drug activities??

(1)  http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/12/justice/oregon-mall-shooting/index.html
(2)  http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/12/oregon_mall_shooting_debunking_myths_about_the_clackamas_town_center_attack.html
(3)  http://minutemennews.com/2012/12/oregon-mall-shooting-brave-citizen-with-concealed-carry-may-have-saved-lives/

[Conan71]

Heir,

There's also the consideration that in spite of the Brady Act and the Clinton assault weapon ban, we had massacres while that ban was in effect.  Laws only apply to those who observe them.

We will never figure out how to legislate the evil out of people.

Here's a great piece from Guardian UK.  The US has the highest average gun ownership rate at 88.8 guns per 100 citizens, yet our homicide by firearm rate per 100K people is 2.97 per 100,000.  That puts us about 28th from the top.

So, given those caveats, we can see which countries have the highest ownership rates for firearms - and which have the highest gun murder rates.

The key facts are:

• The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people
• But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people
• Puerto Rico tops the world's table for firearms murders as a percentage of all homicides - 94.8%. It's followed by Sierra Leone in Africa and Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean

The full data is below - what can you do with it?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list#data

[Teatownclown]

Conan, don't you believe that had the Newtown killer entered a school with armed men this could have been stopped early?

it’s also no longer possible for me to ignore the National Rifle Association, and its hick fascism politics that’ve been poisoning our culture ever since the NRA’s infamous "coup" in 1977, when the NRA was taken over by far-right fanatics led by a convicted murderer and onetime US Border Guards chief named Harlon Carter — whose previous claim to fame was when he led a massive crackdown on Mexican immigrant laborers called "Operation Wetback." That’s not a typo by the way..... The more batshit malevolent the gun cult gets, the more power they exert. Just ignore the periodic squeals from the rest of the country, and keep pushing the batshit envelope. http://truth-out.org/news/item/13457-from-operation-wetback-to-newtown-tracing-the-hick-fascism-of-the-nra

I love you gun nuttery hicks!!!! So brave, so patriotic!

[Gaspar]

The Clinton era assault weapons ban was based solely on a cosmetic criteria.
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.
[edit]

Because of that, it affected almost no one. It was a piece of legislature designed to satisfy media and low-information-voters.  I own shotguns, rifles and pistols that anyone would view and consider "assault weaponry" however they would not meet any of the criteria above.

Durring the period of the ban, gun retailers still sold all of the popular models, they simply sold the accessories separately.  I remember purchasing a gun at Dongs in 1995, and purchasing the additional "accessory kit."  The assault weapons ban resulted in a 1 minute inconvenience.

If they wanted to pass legislation with impact, it would first be necessary to regulate the grain of the load, caliber of the projectile, barrel velocity, magazine capacity, and rate of fire.  This would significantly effect the legal use of firearms, especially hunting. Second, they would need to confiscate and destroy existing weaponry.  This could be somewhat accomplished through voluntary buyback programs, but the need to enforce would lead to the penalty of imprisonment.  Naturally we would then see a bustling black-market emerge fueled by high profits and controlled supply. This would divert firearm access from the law abiding citizen to the professional criminal.  At that point we would develop the new "War on Guns" and spend billions of dollars and thousands of lives fighting it. The new gun cartels would buy police, politicians, and many of the 2Aers would secretly support and aid them. Anywhoo, we've done this before, and will likely do it again and again. The result will always be the same. 

Quote from: Turdclown on December 17, 2012

Conan, don't you believe that had the Newtown killer entered a school with armed men this could have been stopped early?

Clown,
The school had all of the modern security equipment.  I assume in the wake of this, everything is to be reevaluated.

All I can say is that if an armed gunman shot through the front door of my place of work and entered, he would have a much higher risk of contracting lead poisoning before making it too far down the hallway.  I think perhaps some training, a handgun, and a biometric safe in the principal or teacher's offices would not be a bad idea. Even an armed security officer is better than nothing.  After all, we have armed guards in most of our banks to protect our money, I think our kids are worth far more than anything we keep in a bank, don't you?

It would be wonderful if we lived in a world where we didn't have to worry about senseless acts of violence, and it would be great if we lived in a world full of unicorns that crapped cupcakes, however, neither of these will happen no matter how hard we legislate for them. 

This was the act of a sick young man with access to weapons that he should not have had.  He chose targets incapable of security or defense because he wanted to show us how angry/important/hurt/meaningful he was.  Perhaps, IF it was a well known fact that educators and schools were capable of defending themselves durring lockdown, than this would have turned out very different.  Perhaps, just knowing that, Lanza would have chosen a different target for his rage?  But who can say, and is it really fair to speculate?

[TulsaRufnex]

Here's a great piece from Guardian UK.  The US has the highest average gun ownership rate at 88.8 guns per 100 citizens, yet our homicide by firearm rate per 100K people is 2.97 per 100,000.  That puts us about 28th from the top.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list#data

Actually, that puts us 28th from the WORST in the world... and in the company of third world countries... please, continue....

'Pro-Gun' States Lead the Nation in Per Capita Firearm Death Rates
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pro-gun-states-lead-the-nation-in-per-capita-firearm-death-rates-57514947.html

States with the Five HIGHEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates

Louisiana--Rank: 1; Household Gun Ownership: 45.6 percent; Gun Death Rate: 19.04 per 100,000.
Alaska--Rank: 2; Household Gun Ownership: 60.6 percent; Gun Death Rate: 17.49 per 100,000.
Montana--Rank: 3; Household Gun Ownership: 61.4 percent; Gun Death Rate: 17.22 per 100,000.
Tennessee--Rank: 4; Household Gun Ownership: 46.4 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.39 per 100,000.
Alabama--Rank: 5; Household Gun Ownership: 57.2 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.18 per 100,000.

States with the Five LOWEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates

Hawaii--Rank: 50; Household Gun Ownership: 9.7 percent; Gun Death Rate: 2.20 per 100,000.
Massachusetts--Rank: 49; Household Gun Ownership: 12.8 percent; Gun Death Rate: 3.48 per 100,000.
Rhode Island--Rank: 48; Household Gun Ownership: 13.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 3.63 per 100,000.
New Jersey--Rank: 47; Household Gun Ownership: 11.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 4.99 per 100,000.
New York--Rank: 46; Household Gun Ownership: 18.1 percent; Gun Death Rate: 5.28 per 100,000.
PR Newswire (http://s.tt/1bLMy)

[swake]

You are so full of crap, either you didn’t read what it said or you are lying to protect your precious guns.

I saw a note about how Australia had a massacre, passed a gun ban, and no more massacres...for the last couple of years.  How lame an association can one get - there is NO valid cause/effect association there whatsoever.  

Utter crap. It wasn’t just a couple of years, it’s been 16 years. And as comparison in the 10 years before the law there were 11 massacres.

That is just ignorant, knee jerk reaction, because - IF THERE WERE - the ability to make such an association, then the passing of Norway's main gun laws, the most recent in 2009, would indicate that PASSING restrictions on "assault weapons" is what leads to a massacre...like the one they had in 2011 where a guy made a fertilizer bomb, killed 8 and wounded 209.  THEN went on an assault weapon rampage, ending up killing total of 77, and wounding another 105 or so.  

No one is saying that any measure can stop all killings. The “ignorant, knee jerk reaction” is the one where any solution is fool proof or it’s not worth doing. We have had at least six mass shootings in the last six months alone. A good goal might be to stop some of these, or is that not worth it to you? Feel like a big man with your gun? How many first graders riddled with up to ELEVEN .223 rounds EACH from the M4 is that feeling worth?

The whole focus on "assault weapons" is disingenuous, false, and is strictly a political ploy to get a "foot in the door" toward getting rid of guns.  (Ever read any of the Brady organization bullspit?)

Bullspit? Hey, here’s a fun pic, this is Caleb Melody, on July 20th he went to a movie theater and got shot in the head, four days before his first child was born. ] Does that AR15 that shot him seem so “disingenuous, false” now?

The Oregon mall shooting has had an amazing array of stories surrounding it.  One says that the gunman "may" have heard police sirens and then shot himself just then(1)....what kind of ignorant carp is that?  Oh, CNN...sorry...silly question...  And does anyone believe the sheriff's office arrived one minute after the call came in?  Geez....

Slate proposes avoiding knee jerk reactions and let's find out the facts. (2)

And a guy who was there - feet from the action - with concealed carry may have had an effect on the gunman when he pulled his firearm out and brandished it. (3)

What are the odds that a guy like this is gonna get scared by some sirens several minutes away and just give up right then and kill himself?  Yeah...sounds right to me.

Your little link with that story about a guy with a gun confronting the shooter? Nice source you have there. “minutemennews.com” a birther/truther website with fun articles like “Is DHS giving Americans 50 million reasons to think Obama is gearing up for civil war”. Beyond idiotic.

Did the armed guy scare him?  Who knows - seems like a stretch.  We are never gonna know what went on in his mind, but it sure wasn't the cops - he would have expected them to react/arrive no matter what.  These things are way more complicated.  It is stupid to jump to these "more gun control conclusions."  Especially since we have direct, incontrovertible indications that more armed people are associated with states/cities that have lower violent crime rates along with concealed carry.

You need to find that proof, I don’t buy it. You greatly increase your likelyhood of being shot by buying a gun. Now that’s a fact.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/23/opinion/frum-guns/index.html

And the two places that are MOST notorious for keeping people from even having guns in their homes - Chicago and Washington, DC - are the ones that have INCREASING violent crime rates at exactly the same time it's going down everywhere else!!  There is NO association possible with Chicago and DC to decreased lead levels in the environment.  How about criminalized drug activities??

A city based gun law is inherently going to have little effect. But let’s look at your two examples, Chicago USED to have a ban on handguns and that city’s rate has been falling for more than a decade, at least it was. Scotus repealed the ban in 2010 and now Chicago’s murder rate is going back up. Not the best example. Washington DC? The murder rate there peaked more than 20 years ago at 482 murders and is now down by 75% with only 108 murders in 2011. Tulsa’s murder rate is only slightly lower than DC’s. Also not a good example for you.

[Ed W]

I saw a note about how Australia had a massacre, passed a gun ban, and no more massacres...for the last couple of years.  How lame an association can one get - there is NO valid cause/effect association there whatsoever.  

It's important to remember that correlation is not causation.  Just because A preceded B does not necessarily mean that A caused B.  We all know people who insist that a current violent crime or heinous event came about "because they took prayer out of the schools."  It's equally valid to say that because nearly all criminals have eaten white bread, the bread is somehow responsible for their crimes.

My thanks to Gaspar for finding those violent crime statistics.  We can speculate about the reasons behind the decline in the numbers, but first let's be thankful for those declines.  I was surprised to see that knives were responsible for roughly the same number of crimes as firearms in many years.  Still, the number of "victimizations" - bureaucrat-speak for 'violent crimes' I assume - has fallen by about two-thirds when compared to 1993.  There's a footnote saying that the methodology changed in 2006.  I'd like to know what that entailed.

There's a perverse sort of comfort found by delving into the statistics.  It helps to put the horror at arm's length, lessening its emotional impact.  While that emotional aspect helps galvanize us to action, the statistics can be a tool to see that the actions we take are reasonable, responsible ones.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Actually, that puts us 28th from the WORST in the world... and in the company of third world countries... please, continue....

Then how would you explain away the Norway results?  And the FACT that while there are something on the order or 8,000 murders per year using firearms, at exactly the same time there are over 2 1/2 MILLION incidents a year where someone in this country uses a firearm to defend themselves and prevent a violent crime.

Where is the sense of proportion?  Because what you are saying - and what the entire anti-gun argument is saying - is that those other 2 1/2 million have less value than the 27 murdered last week.

Let's take it another step - we have had almost a week of bombardment from the anti-gun reactionary extremists, and lest one jump to an extremist reactionary position - I certainly am not saying that anyone associated with this event should just "get over it"....  Now, we have reached a point where many of the most commonly used news outlets are just going on and on and on about getting rid of "assault weapons" ....for the sake of the children.  What a disingenuous crock of carp.