This thread takes the cake in that if people say it often enough then something untrue will magically become true. This really is a conversation that people are making up the data and conclusions as they go along. Interesting this passes as intellectual conversation. Seems more like a thread geared towards the low information reader.
However, it turns out that for developed countries (data from between 2009 - 2013):
But hey, why let facts get in the way of an argument with a politicized purpose, even if argument is flat-out false.
It’s as simple as this - Australia, Britain and Canada - cultures similar to ours - simply don’t have mass shootings because they have gun laws with teeth. Here in the U.S. we have to suck up to the rednecks and thugs who won’t let go their guns. It’s sickening and upsetting.
Y’know, Canada has a lot of similarities with the U.S.: lots of wide open spaces, lots of hunters. Yet they have only a quarter of our gun deaths per capita. Why is that? Could it be the stricter gun laws?
I have to call out the single most deceptive post I’ve ever seen, linked to the most deceptive chart I’ve ever seen: all 77 of Norway’s killings in “rampage shootings” were Anders Breivik. One incident. One. This statement, which was also quoted with approval in another post, is a complete misstatement or a blunt lie: “It turns out these incidents occur 21 times more frequently in Norway and two and a half times more often in Finland than they do here.” No. There was 1 incident in Norway and 2 in Finland. Intentionally confusing the number of dead with the number of incidents is the worst kind of arguing.
The chart does include the number of incidents, as I implied in the paragraph above. No other country has more than 2 incidents - note incidents - and the US is listed with 38.
This is nonsense. Norway doesn’t have more incidents of mass shooting than the U.S. Norway had one horrible mass shooting in 2011, which happened to make the numbers for their small-population country look terrible in the study period.
Ahh, well, no. Not only is this statement not “[That] simple,” it is just plain wrong.
I am going to assume you did not just make this up and got it from the oft-cited National Journal article from August 28, which, by the way, conveniently leaves out data that conflicts with its hypothesis.
More specifically, if the state data is too good (low homicides and pro-gun) and wrecks the original hypothesis, then simply claim there is not enough data. Gotta love that cynical statistical sleight-of-hand - works great on low information people though:
Hold on, it gets better:
Hello, numbskulls at National Journal. Did you ever stop to think that the homicide rate was that low for those nine states exactly because the rate is that low? The absolute bias here is blinding - National Journal excluded states where they, because of their bias, refused to believe the homicide rate could be that low within a pro-gun state.
Therefore, walla, the conclusion is easy to make in the National Journal article, just as long as low homicide, pro-gun states are left out of the equation because of course such places cannot exist with pro-gun laws, i.e, the crime rate must be higher with fewer gun laws. This is an article for idiots.
And guns are not the issue driving the violent crime rate in higher homicide states, it is the culture of the states in general:
270% increase so they are what, maybe 5% now? And I bet a lot of them have guns because their gun-obsessed nut case boyfriend or husband insisted on it. This is a testosterone thing, 99% of the time. Compensation…
However, it is not hypothetical that half the country believes a beating heart represents the existence of life, which is consistent with doctors who use a stopped heart to determine the loss of life.
Your “libertyunyielding” link contends that Obama had his facts wrong by claiming that the majority of Americans support reasonable restrictions on gun sales. It includes a chart from Gallop polling and comments:
So supposedly, the “trend” is in your favor but according to the data you cite, the majority of those polled do indeed favor more stringent gun control laws. Obama does not have his facts wrong.
Polls are tricky things. Ask yes-no questions, or vague “more stringent, less stringent” questions and you get a response that leans in favor of no restrictions on gun rights. But according to one study, support for gun control legislation remains the majority position when specific measures are described.
You may not see a reason, but you may want to discuss this with the over 1 Million+ people who defensively use a gun each year to prevent themselves from becoming an actual victim. OK, I get it that you may not want to be responsible for defending yourself, but this penchant to make other defenseless is beyond me.
Overall, I find it interesting that people have all this empathy for victims of crimes, but have no praise for potential victims who effectively and pro-actively defend themselves from crimes. That is just plain weird. In my world, I am happy for the person who does (did) what he can (could) to not be a victim of a crime. Not being a victim is much better than all the sympathy after being hurt, and possibly killed. Must be a mindset thing that victim-hood is holier and somehow better than a strong, effective, pro-active defense.
And since posters on this thread seem to love the CDC, here is what the CDC concludes about defensive gun use:
And so much for right-to-carry laws increasing crime and for the efficacy of beloved gun buy-back programs:
I assume this is in response to the previous post #138 about mass shootings in other countries. Since, Post #138 specifically lists examples of mass shootings in other countries, I call this response comparing apples and oranges and irrelevant to Post 138.
In no uncertain terms, there has not been 140 mass shootings in the US since Sandy Hook. OK, I may have missed them, but it seems so has the Washington Post.
When you have figures, which include individual attacks from the other countries adjusted for population size, then and only then can you claim the US is an outlier. But, it is clear from a mass shooting point-of-view, the US is not an outlier. Effective though, as the quote above must sound compelling to the ignorant.
You obviously have NO clue whatsoever that not everyone approaches life with your mentality. You are dead wrong (pun intended) and have NO right to speak for others. NO RIGHT.