The Facts about Mass Shootings

[RobertNashville]

I thought this article was worth passing along...some good points that may help us frame our discussions with others.

From the article:
 

A few things you won’t hear about from the saturation coverage of the Newtown, Conn., school massacre:

Mass shootings are no more common than they have been in past decades, despite the impression given by the media.

In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections. Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century....

Article continues here: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund# Edited December 19, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Oh Shoot]

One other fact, if they ban "assault weapons" and hi-cap mags:

 

Given the will, could not 'bout anyone with average range skills kill 50 or more people in a confined area like a theater or school with just a .22 pistol with 10 round magazines?

 

Answer: yes.

 

- OS

[gjohnsoniv]

Just like anyone with a Trapdoor Springfield could wreak just as much havoc at range as someone with a bolt action.

[RobertNashville]

They ban high capacity magazines...people will buy more 10 round mags...I can change a mag pretty damn fast and I know plenty of other people can do it faster than I can.

[Jonnin]

ban mags are just regular mags with an extended follower so they stop before you can put in more rounds, right? .....  I know the makarov lovers know about this, you can cut down the followers to get 1-2 more rounds in the mags on those easily.   Combine this with someone who has no regard for the law.... derp.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Jonnin

[Dave Nowlin]

All this is interesting.  The President of the NRA was on Face the Nation today.  Bob (the idiot) would ask him a question and before he could finish answering it Bob would start trying to talk over him.  He did it again and again.  I would have slapped that old man silly if I could.  I'm really getting tired of these liberal commentators who love interupting people and talking over them.  Some interesting facts were brought out in the conversation.  There was a previous ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.  When it expired the F.B.I. and other federal officials admitted it really hadn't changed anything so it wasn't reeinstated.  Bob Siefer said at the beginning of the show he had gotten a double barrel shotgun when he was 12.  I suppose that was to make us believe he is a gun expert.  Later in the show he made it quite obvious he doesn't understand the difference between automatic and semi-automatic where guns are concerned.  I have a friend who is the range officer for a small town in Tennessee.  He recently told me that it is their policy today to carry either a patrol rifle or shotgun in instances where it is believed there will be a confrontation.  The sidearm is simply viewed as a backup weapon.  When we are protecting our own homes from assault, why are we viewed as evil if we employ the same thought process?  How often does a police officer get in a shootout with 4 or 5 or more individuals at the same time?  Today some home breakins employ 4 or more individuals.  Bloomberg says he will dedicate much of his wealth to fight against gun ownership.  Will he also dismiss his bodyguards?  Will any of these big shots in government who say we don't need weapons dismiss their bodyguards?  Are our families well being less important than theirs?  Remember the shooter at Newtown purposely chose defenseless individuals to attack.  He was a coward.  When he heard help breaking into the school he shot himself.  People can't seem to understand that when a person decides to hurt other people he will.  If guns aren't available to him he can become a suicide bomber or use a molotov cocktail or many other makeshift weapons to kill.  Terrorists in Africa have attacked people with machetes and hacked people to death.  There was a school bombing in 1927 in Michigan which took more lives than were lost in Newtown.  One problem is all these Federal Privacy Laws.  When a person is found mentally ill his name isn't added to the state list of folks who shouldn't be able to buy weapons.  That would violate his rights.  What about the rights of the innocent.  It seems that in America today the honest law abiding citizen who works every day and pays taxes and helps keep all this going has no rights while the criminal has many rights.  They don't want a Bible in school while T-shirts promoting gay rights are O.K.  I guess I'm just too old.  I remember when things were different.  When folks respected their parents and other elders.  When folks tried to do the right thing simply because it was right.  The liberal news media hasn't helped things either.  It would be better when they talk about guns if they would use reporters who actually know something about guns.  How would you like to watch a football game where the live action comentators knew nothing about football?  Well that's the way I usually feel when these folks start talking about assault weapons.  Do any of you know of any country any where in the world today where the military uses semi-automatic weapons instead of select fire weapons?  I don't.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Dave Nowlin

[Guest jwrench75]

And a few more tid bits. Back in April '95 some guy named Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer, racing gasoline and a rented van as opposed to a gun to kill 168 people. 19 of them were 6 years old and younger. In April of '99 (five years into the last assault weapons ban) a couple teenagers carried out the Columbine high school massacre. Whoops, guess that ban didn't work. And from what info I can find on the bushmaster xm-15 supposedly used in newtown, it comes with a telescopic stock and a bayonet lug making it already banned in the state of Connecticut.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

What does it matter what age or demographic they are? The focus should be on the motivation and the act, itself.

Everything else is an embellishment designed to tug at your heart.

 

As far back as I can remember, it was a liberal I first saw use the politeness technique to stop the interruption caused by interviewers. They used it very successfully, too. i don't know why more people don't bother showing up at these fiascos they call interviews. I would laugh, let him rant on and wait for him. If he butted in one time before I was done, I would tell him he had his piece, now it's my turn. Please be quiet, one time, then walk out if he persisted. Politeness has gone to Hell as far as interviews go, and I don't like Hannity or Schieffer or anyone doing it. Just let their ratings fall off, further.

 

Does anyone watch the Sunday morning lie shows, anyway?

Edited December 24, 2012 by 6.8 AR