26 Dead including children at San Antonio Church massacre

[Telconi]

So Trump is insisting this is a mental health issue rather than anything else.

Didn't he sign an EO in February removing mental health checks from the buying process?

No, they simply modified the definition of who was mentally unfit, previously anyone receiving a check from the government who had a surrogate manage that check was disqualified.

[Washington Resistance Army]

So Trump is insisting this is a mental health issue rather than anything else.

Didn't he sign an EO in February removing mental health checks from the buying process?

No.

[Camicon]

A crime can be violent without involving firearms, a distinction the FBI doesn't make. [EDIT] Pause while I look at the different url you so subtly changed.

Still waiting on those primary sources.

Not according to you.

Unlike Norway, the American federal government is not allowed to track gun violence.

(Both links prove the point, the latter is more specific. Use either one you like.)

If you want to prove the U.S. has a higher rate, mate, the sources should be being found by you.

EDIT: I see the "mass shooting" reference got removed. Second point stands regardless.

Mea culpa. I confused the ban on the CDC conducting research.

But you are the one that's been making claims and not providing primary sources. I sources my claims (see: previous post).

[Ifreann]

So gun owners are the problem.

---

If the Daily Mail told me the sky was blue I wouldn't believe it until I saw it for myself. If The Sun told me the sky was blue I wouldn't believe it even after I'd seen it myself.

---

The Library of Congress had collected 525 terabytes, five hundred and twenty five trillion bytes, of web archive data as of March 2014, and was adding about 5 TB a month.

Now obviously one gun would need more than one byte of data to be properly accounted for, but data about a few hundred million guns is nothing to modern computers.

Except it's not a few hundred million is closer to 1 billion than 100 million

And three years ago the Library of Congress had collected five hundred and twenty five thousand billion bytes of data. They've likely added another hundred and eighty thousand billion since then.

[Kennlind]

Yup! You guys know more about the shooter than the people who know him in real life. Damn it!

Give us a real source...

The news outlets aren't the source. That people that knew the shooter, had him as a friend on facebook and went to school with him? They're the source. Take it up with them since you know the shooter far better than them apparently.

[Xelsis]

Given that mass shootings are defined by taking part in a public place, breaking into a house for a robbery/murder doesn't qualify.

But, I'm feeling amenable, so I'll accept it for the sake of argument. Indiana's now equal to Norway in number of mass shootings, ten times better in terms of fatalities.

If you start looking at firearm fatalities without discrimination as to what led to those fatalities then Indiana (12.7 per 100,000 as of 2015) outpaces Norway (1.22 per 100,000 as of 2014). By a factor of ten.

If you'd like to change the topic to day-to-day murders, I'm fine with doing that. What's been claimed and hammered home, however, has been that the U.S. has vastly more mass shootings than countries such as Norway and Finland per capita, and I'd like to make sure that is set to rest before moving on.

[Xelsis]

Not according to you.



(Both links prove the point, the latter is more specific. Use either one you like.)

If you want to prove the U.S. has a higher rate, mate, the sources should be being found by you.

EDIT: I see the "mass shooting" reference got removed. Second point stands regardless.

Mea culpa. I confused the ban on the CDC conducting research.

But you are the one that's been making claims and not providing primary sources. I sources my claims (see: previous post).

It's true that I didn't provide the primary source for the initial claim, using Politifact instead, I've got no problem copping to that. Since then, the Norway and Finland mass shootings were backed up by me, and proving a higher rate of U.S. shootings due to gang violence additions is your attempted argument rather than mine.

[Thermodolia]

Except it's not a few hundred million is closer to 1 billion than 100 million

And three years ago the Library of Congress had collected five hundred and twenty five thousand billion bytes of data. They've likely added another hundred and eighty thousand billion since then.

Ya but the library of congress owns most of its books making the process much much much more easier. Every single gun registration scheme has been met with massive amounts of non-compliance.

So good luck attempting to track down 600 million unregistered guns. Because nobody is going to let FBI or AFT agents into their houses

[Anywhere Else But Here]

So Trump is insisting this is a mental health issue rather than anything else.

Didn't he sign an EO in February removing mental health checks from the buying process?

And didn't Sandy Hook teach us that mental background checks don't matter when you can kill your mom and take her gun?

That sounds like an excellent argument for not letting mum have a gun either.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Not according to you.



(Both links prove the point, the latter is more specific. Use either one you like.)

If you want to prove the U.S. has a higher rate, mate, the sources should be being found by you.

EDIT: I see the "mass shooting" reference got removed. Second point stands regardless.

Mea culpa. I confused the ban on the CDC conducting research.

But you are the one that's been making claims and not providing primary sources. I sources my claims (see: previous post).

The CDC fairly regularly conducts research on guns and gun violence.

[Ifreann]

And three years ago the Library of Congress had collected five hundred and twenty five thousand billion bytes of data. They've likely added another hundred and eighty thousand billion since then.

Ya but the library of congress owns most of its books making the process much much much more easier.

That isn't counting the books. That's web archive data.

Every single gun registration scheme has been met with massive amounts of non-compliance.

So good luck attempting to track down 600 million unregistered guns. Because nobody is going to let FBI or AFT agents into their houses

So I've been told. Law abiding gun owners indeed.

Of course, that's beside the point. WRA said that one hell of a computer system would be needed to track the amount of gun sales there are in the US. I am explaining that such a computer system is entirely within the realm of possibility.

[Imperializt Russia]

Yes, what about it? It is the only such attack Norway has seen.

Large-scale gun attacks (say, 20+) happen what, four times a year in the US? Massive attacks maybe annually?

Norway doesn't have the population of the United States. Norway has about the population of Indiana, or Tennessee. (Less, actually). Indiana's never seen a mass shooting. Tennessee has had one, well under a tenth as deadly as Norway. Should Norway adopt Indianan or Tennessean gun laws?

Continually comparing a state-sized country to one sixty times its size is obviously going to give smaller numbers on the one a sixtieth of its size.

But you brought up Norway, you tit.

And in a similar vein, since we are talking about the US overall (as I don't feel it's controversial to argue that more states have seen a mass shooting than have not, since you only gave two counter-examples, later conceding both had one "mass shooting" in some form or another),
doesn't this very argument delegitimatise isolating individual states' statistics and claiming this somehow means something?

(And no, the U.S. has had seven 20+ gun attacks ever. Comparing it to Norway, that would give the U.S. only a little over a tenth as many such large scale attacks per capita)

Well I am talking about overall casualties, not fatalities. This obviously greatly raises the number of shootings to which I am referring because I don't fap to the bodycount, unlike the kind of people who commit these shootings, and the people who dismiss the severity of such because not enough people died.

[Telconi]

Ya but the library of congress owns most of its books making the process much much much more easier.

That isn't counting the books. That's web archive data.

Every single gun registration scheme has been met with massive amounts of non-compliance.

So good luck attempting to track down 600 million unregistered guns. Because nobody is going to let FBI or AFT agents into their houses

So I've been told. Law abiding gun owners indeed.

Of course, that's beside the point. WRA said that one hell of a computer system would be needed to track the amount of gun sales there are in the US. I am explaining that such a computer system is entirely within the realm of possibility.

Well I imagine law abiding homosexuals would balk at being put on a registry proposed my Mike Pence. Or literally any other demographic registry proposed by a someone who wishes said demographic destroyed.

[Imperializt Russia]

Mea culpa. I confused the ban on the CDC conducting research.

But you are the one that's been making claims and not providing primary sources. I sources my claims (see: previous post).

The CDC fairly regularly conducts research on guns and gun violence.

Incredibly basic statistical analysis, otherwise it would be perceived to have run foul of the Dickey amendment.
The vaguely worded, and easily-bent interpretation of, the amendment makes it very easy to claim that almost any policy suggestion (which will almost invariably be "maybe less guns, plz") by the CDC is "using public funds to promote gun control".

[Camicon]

If you start looking at firearm fatalities without discrimination as to what led to those fatalities then Indiana (12.7 per 100,000 as of 2015) outpaces Norway (1.22 per 100,000 as of 2014). By a factor of ten.

If you'd like to change the topic to day-to-day murders, I'm fine with doing that. What's been claimed and hammered home, however, has been that the U.S. has vastly more mass shootings than countries such as Norway and Finland per capita, and I'd like to make sure that is set to rest before moving on.

Then provide some primary sources to support your claims.

Mea culpa. I confused the ban on the CDC conducting research.

But you are the one that's been making claims and not providing primary sources. I sources my claims (see: previous post).

It's true that I didn't provide the primary source for the initial claim, using Politifact instead, I've got no problem copping to that. Since then, the Norway and Finland mass shootings were backed up by me, and proving a higher rate of U.S. shootings due to gang violence additions is your attempted argument rather than mine.

Where did you provide sources to back your claims, after citing Politifact? (the FBI data you provided doesn't pertain to mass shootings)

And I was not talking about gang violence in an attempt to add it to the discussion, I was talking about the exclusion of gang violence from the data cited by Politifact as evidence that the data is flawed. Excluding mass shootings because of where they took place, or because of who was involved, is terrible research methodology.

[Camicon]

Mea culpa. I confused the ban on the CDC conducting research.

But you are the one that's been making claims and not providing primary sources. I sources my claims (see: previous post).

The CDC fairly regularly conducts research on guns and gun violence.

Collecting and presenting data from other sources isn't conducting research.

[Imperializt Russia]

That isn't counting the books. That's web archive data.

So I've been told. Law abiding gun owners indeed.

Of course, that's beside the point. WRA said that one hell of a computer system would be needed to track the amount of gun sales there are in the US. I am explaining that such a computer system is entirely within the realm of possibility.

Well I imagine law abiding homosexuals would balk at being put on a registry proposed my Mike Pence. Or literally any other demographic registry proposed by a someone who wishes said demographic destroyed.

The argument is backwards and hyperbolic.

It only makes sense if one argues that the gun registry would be used to imprison or otherwise persons for having owned firearms, which... makes no sense?
Whereas registries of ethnicities or perceived proclivities have been used and would still be used to do just that against such persons.

[Len Hyet]

The CDC fairly regularly conducts research on guns and gun violence.

Incredibly basic statistical analysis, otherwise it would be perceived to have run foul of the Dickey amendment.
The vaguely worded, and easily-bent interpretation of, the amendment makes it very easy to claim that almost any policy suggestion (which will almost invariably be "maybe less guns, plz") by the CDC is "using public funds to promote gun control".

To be fair, the CDC has a rather sordid history of going into research with the intention of influencing the public perception of guns as "dirty" and moving towards getting them banned. The Dicky Amendment was put in to curtail their shenanigans.

[Telconi]

Well I imagine law abiding homosexuals would balk at being put on a registry proposed my Mike Pence. Or literally any other demographic registry proposed by a someone who wishes said demographic destroyed.

The argument is backwards and hyperbolic.

It only makes sense if one argues that the gun registry would be used to imprison or otherwise persons for having owned firearms, which... makes no sense?
Whereas registries of ethnicities or perceived proclivities have been used and would still be used to do just that against such persons.

They'd be used to confiscate the guns on said registry.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The argument is backwards and hyperbolic.

It only makes sense if one argues that the gun registry would be used to imprison or otherwise persons for having owned firearms, which... makes no sense?
Whereas registries of ethnicities or perceived proclivities have been used and would still be used to do just that against such persons.

They'd be used to confiscate the guns on said registry.

Hasn't that happened in your state with the SKS debacle?

[Fartsniffage]

That isn't counting the books. That's web archive data.

So I've been told. Law abiding gun owners indeed.

Of course, that's beside the point. WRA said that one hell of a computer system would be needed to track the amount of gun sales there are in the US. I am explaining that such a computer system is entirely within the realm of possibility.

Well I imagine law abiding homosexuals would balk at being put on a registry proposed my Mike Pence. Or literally any other demographic registry proposed by a someone who wishes said demographic destroyed.

Why are you worried? You have a gun, defend yourself if the government goes all tyrannical.

[Len Hyet]

Well I imagine law abiding homosexuals would balk at being put on a registry proposed my Mike Pence. Or literally any other demographic registry proposed by a someone who wishes said demographic destroyed.

Why are you worried? You have a gun, defend yourself if the government goes all tyrannical.

Perhaps because civil war is a last resort, not a first choice?

[Telconi]

Well I imagine law abiding homosexuals would balk at being put on a registry proposed my Mike Pence. Or literally any other demographic registry proposed by a someone who wishes said demographic destroyed.

Why are you worried? You have a gun, defend yourself if the government goes all tyrannical.

That's just asinine and you know it, got an actual response?

[Thermodolia]

Well I imagine law abiding homosexuals would balk at being put on a registry proposed my Mike Pence. Or literally any other demographic registry proposed by a someone who wishes said demographic destroyed.

The argument is backwards and hyperbolic.

It only makes sense if one argues that the gun registry would be used to imprison or otherwise persons for having owned firearms, which... makes no sense?
Whereas registries of ethnicities or perceived proclivities have been used and would still be used to do just that against such persons.

Because the government is totally benevolent and would never lock up anyone based on what they believed or owned. Nope that's never happened before

[Telconi]

They'd be used to confiscate the guns on said registry.

Hasn't that happened in your state with the SKS debacle?

Yes, suddenly a removable magazine SKS type rifle becomes an 'assault weapon' because the AG woke up with their panties in a bunch because people had liberty in California.