Total Deaths Caused by the Top 20 Mass Shootings in US History.

[Agnostic007]

OK, so yes.  You believe in denying Constitutional rights without due process.  That isn't a small inconvenience. 

What other Constitution rights is it ok to take away from people?

Just that one

[Agnostic007]

This is either some pretty lazy trolling or some pretty lazy reasoning. I don't think a child would even be foolish enough pass off such lazy analysis as thoughtful, much less someone with a "4 year university mathematics degree."

First, using only this chart as reference,  just a quick glance  shows that the vast majority of those shootings have happened in the last decade. Secondly, that chart shows that the shootings are trending deadlier as time progresses. Along with deadlier incidents, we see that as time progresses shootings become more common. 2009, 2012, 2015 and 2017 all have multiple entries on a list with only 20 spots. Thirdly, and most importantly, why are you using a sample that encompasses 70 years and 20 events and conflating it with the total number of shootings/deaths/injuries? No matter how many words you cram into your post or how many "mathematics degrees"   you have, that screenshot does  not equal 7 deaths a year.

Al.. I don't think logic is allowed here.. It's not your fault, it threw me off too

I'm joking here..

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

Fuck off. Obama gave an average of $500mil per year of tax payers money to Planned Parent Hood. Asshole

https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/report/disentangling-the-data-planned-parenthood-affiliates-abortion-services

Obama didn't do shit.  That money has been going to Planned Parenthood and none of it goes towards abortions as they are not allowed to use one penny for it.  Planned Parenthood provides a number of health services for woman other than abortion.

[Agnostic007]

OK, so yes.  You believe in denying Constitutional rights without due process.  That isn't a small inconvenience. 

What other Constitution rights is it ok to take away from people?

So visa versa you are saying no matter the signs, info and likelihood a disturbed person will buy the gun and commit a mass shooting, as long as he hasn't been tried, he's good to go, the 2nd amendment trumps any common sense?

[SuperTed]

The concern is more how frequently these shootings are taking place. They used to occur once every few years, but now seem to be occurring every other month. We've already seen three since last summer.

[be back]

The concern is more how frequently these shootings are taking place. They used to occur once every few years, but now seem to be occurring every other month. We've already seen three since last summer.

If they weren't reported there would be less of them, people see how much publicity and "fame" the shooters get so they want to be remembered and they go do it themselves,

the more you advertise something the more people will do it

We have a new policy at work regarding mental health, they are constantly talking about depression and bi polar on the work website, as such more people read it and think "hey thats me, I will have 6 months off with full pay if I say im depressed"

the more you talk about something the more it happens...

[Pray_4_War]

This is either some pretty lazy trolling or some pretty lazy reasoning. I don't think a child would even be foolish enough pass off such lazy analysis as thoughtful, much less someone with a "4 year university mathematics degree."

First, using only this chart as reference,  just a quick glance  shows that the vast majority of those shootings have happened in the last decade. Secondly, that chart shows that the shootings are trending deadlier as time progresses. Along with deadlier incidents, we see that as time progresses shootings become more common. 2009, 2012, 2015 and 2017 all have multiple entries on a list with only 20 spots. Thirdly, and most importantly, why are you using a sample that encompasses 70 years and 20 events and conflating it with the total number of shootings/deaths/injuries? No matter how many words you cram into your post or how many "mathematics degrees"  you have, that screenshot does  not equal 7 deaths a year.

Since guns are the problem then people must have only started to own guns in the last decade, right?  Wrong.

In 1925 you used to be able to order a fully automatic Thompson Sub and have it mailed to your house.  Why were their no school shootings in those days?

We are going about solving this school shooting issue completely wrong.  Guns are just the tool, you've got to deal with the root cause.  What makes a person want to kill a bunch of school kids or concert goers?

What makes a person run over 50 people with a truck?  What makes a person blow up buildings, or fly planes into them?  We are digging in the wrong hole.

[Agnostic007]

The concern is more how frequently these shootings are taking place. They used to occur once every few years, but now seem to be occurring every other month. We've already seen three since last summer.

And there is no reason to believe it will slow down

[Agnostic007]

Since guns are the problem then people must have only started to own guns in the last decade, right?  Wrong.

In 1925 you used to be able to order a fully automatic Thompson Sub and have it mailed to your house.  Why were their no school shootings in those days?

We are going about solving this school shooting issue completely wrong.  Guns are just the tool, you've got to deal with the root cause.  What makes a person want to kill a bunch of school kids or concert goers?

What makes a person run over 50 people with a truck?  What makes a person blow up buildings, or fly planes into them?  We are digging in the wrong hole.

But while you are working on that problem... which you must admit will take time, perhaps decades, leaving the "tool" available seems irresponsible

[BB]

So visa versa you are saying no matter the signs, info and likelihood a disturbed person will buy the gun and commit a mass shooting, as long as he hasn't been tried, he's good to go, the 2nd amendment trumps any common sense?

Again -

Why weren't your Brothers in Blue doing anything? They were the ones there 30+ times. They could've did something if they really wanted to -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Mental_Health_Act Wink.

That would have been enough to keep him from buying his firearms, that's been Federal Law since at least 1968 -

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx

[Agnostic007]

Again -

Why weren't your Brothers in Blue doing anything? They were the ones there 30+ times. They could've did something if they really wanted to -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Mental_Health_Act Wink.

That would have been enough to keep him from buying his firearms, that's been Federal Law since at least 1968 -

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx

well, as Pray 4 War will attest, there are rights to be respected and unless certain elements are met, he is clearly a danger to himself or others or has caused bodily injury to another person or met the requirement of a terrorist threat, they had their hands tied.
I am speaking as a citizen with little knowledge of the nature of the calls. If I were allowed access to all the police reports of the responding officers I feel confident I could tell you if there was negligence or not, but without that access I could not. I can tell you it obviously sounds bad, but again, often times LE is hindered by statutes, laws and department policy. I'm in no way making excuses for them, just pointing out the possible problems they may have had. It very well could have been negligence, but I can't determine that. Hopefully the investigators will

[Agnostic007]

If they weren't reported there would be less of them, people see how much publicity and "fame" the shooters get so they want to be remembered and they go do it themselves,

the more you advertise something the more people will do it

We have a new policy at work regarding mental health, they are constantly talking about depression and bi polar on the work website, as such more people read it and think "hey thats me, I will have 6 months off with full pay if I say im depressed"

the more you talk about something the more it happens...

I think you're right, but I also think there is simply no way to stop that. Some outlets refuse to name the shooter which I think is a start

[Al Doggity]

Since guns are the problem then people must have only started to own guns in the last decade, right?  Wrong.

In 1925 you used to be able to order a fully automatic Thompson Sub and have it mailed to your house.  Why were their no school shootings in those days?

We are going about solving this school shooting issue completely wrong.  Guns are just the tool, you've got to deal with the root cause.  What makes a person want to kill a bunch of school kids or concert goers?

What makes a person run over 50 people with a truck?  What makes a person blow up buildings, or fly planes into them?  We are digging in the wrong hole.

Are you having a conversation with yourself? You quoted me but where you went with this is not where I (or any rational person) would have gone with that opening line. Yeah, guns have been around , but so have mental health problems. So, what are some other major factors that have changed over the last two decades. Do you think there are any differences between how someone ordered a thompson sub through the mail in 1925 and how someone might do it today?  

[Pray_4_War]

But while you are working on that problem... which you must admit will take time, perhaps decades, leaving the "tool" available seems irresponsible

Even if we all agreed (which I don't and we will not) how do you get around the fact that nuts and criminals don't obey the law?

It's just a simple fact that the only people that would turn in their guns are the ones at very little risk of being a school shooter.  

All you would do is take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.  I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise.

[Al Doggity]

I think you're right, but I also think there is simply no way to stop that. Some outlets refuse to name the shooter which I think is a start

I agree, to an extent. Several of these shooters have said they are either trying to make a point or seeking some type of notoriety.

[BB]

well, as Pray 4 War will attest, there are rights to be respected and unless certain elements are met, he is clearly a danger to himself or others or has caused bodily injury to another person or met the requirement of a terrorist threat, they had their hands tied.
I am speaking as a citizen with little knowledge of the nature of the calls. If I were allowed access to all the police reports of the responding officers I feel confident I could tell you if there was negligence or not, but without that access I could not. I can tell you it obviously sounds bad, but again, often times LE is hindered by statutes, laws and department policy. I'm in no way making excuses for them, just pointing out the possible problems they may have had. It very well could have been negligence, but I can't determine that. Hopefully the investigators will

I don't know, seems they had ample warning that he was a threat to others -

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43071710 .

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article200126034.html .

We don't need to start chiseling at the Constitution, we just need to enforce what's on the books already.

[Agnostic007]

I agree, to an extent. Several of these shooters have said they are either trying to make a point or seeking some type of notoriety.

I can't imagine news outlets not covering a mass shooting but I do wish they would all (by all I guess I mean MSM because there are literally hundreds of internet "news" sites that would have no problem broadcasting the name and image of the shooter) would agree to never mention the shooter(s) or show their pictures. 

[Agnostic007]

Again -

Why weren't your Brothers in Blue doing anything? They were the ones there 30+ times. They could've did something if they really wanted to -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Mental_Health_Act Wink.

That would have been enough to keep him from buying his firearms, that's been Federal Law since at least 1968 -

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx

From the link you mentioned

"Specific criteria must be met in order to initiate involuntary examination. Among those criteria are the following elements, that by themselves, do not qualify an individual as having met or meeting the criteria:
Reason to believe that the person has a mental illness; refusal of voluntary examination; the person is unable to determine whether examination is necessary. Criteria are not met simply because a person has mental illness, appears to have mental problems, takes psychiatric medication, or has an emotional outburst. Criteria are not met simply because a person refuses voluntary examination. Criteria are not met if there are family members or friends that will help prevent any potential and present threat of substantial harm.
The criteria, as stated in the statute, mentions a substantial likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious bodily harm in the near future. ("Substantial" means ample, considerable, firm or strong.)"

I would have to read their reports to be able to say.. and so would anyone else

[BB]

From the link you mentioned

"Specific criteria must be met in order to initiate involuntary examination. Among those criteria are the following elements, that by themselves, do not qualify an individual as having met or meeting the criteria:
Reason to believe that the person has a mental illness; refusal of voluntary examination; the person is unable to determine whether examination is necessary. Criteria are not met simply because a person has mental illness, appears to have mental problems, takes psychiatric medication, or has an emotional outburst. Criteria are not met simply because a person refuses voluntary examination. Criteria are not met if there are family members or friends that will help prevent any potential and present threat of substantial harm.
The criteria, as stated in the statute, mentions a substantial likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious bodily harm in the near future. ("Substantial" means ample, considerable, firm or strong.)"

I would have to read their reports to be able to say.. and so would anyone else

We both know that if they really tried, they could've gotten it done. The FBI knew. The school knew. I'm sure the cops could've cajoled something up, if they really needed too.  And if he did get committed, he'd have be kicked back when they ran the NICS.

Again, the existing law(s) would've worked if they tried.

[Al Doggity]

I can't imagine news outlets not covering a mass shooting but I do wish they would all (by all I guess I mean MSM because there are literally hundreds of internet "news" sites that would have no problem broadcasting the name and image of the shooter) would agree to never mention the shooter(s) or show their pictures. 

I don't know. I was in high school when the columbine shooting happened (the one that sort of set the trend) and this was something that was talked about a lot. I thought it was a good idea at one point, but now I feel that as much info as possible is best policy. Especially in an era when "crisis actors" and pizzagate are things people are things people actually believe in.  

[Agnostic007]

We both know that if they really tried, they could've gotten it done. The FBI knew. The school knew. I'm sure the cops could've cajoled something up, if they really needed too.  And if he did get committed, he'd have be kicked back when they ran the NICS.

Again, the existing law(s) would've worked if they tried.

we both don't know but it is clear that you have jumped to that conclusion. The FBI certainly dropped the ball and yes, all the checks and balances that were supposed to save us sadly didn't work. which is why this 19 year old being able to buy what.. 10 weapons in a year is a little scary. 

[Pray_4_War]

We don't need to start chiseling at the Constitution, we just need to enforce what's on the books already.

Yes, and we also need to remember that the right to keep and bear arms is what protects all the other rights in that document.

[Agnostic007]

I don't know. I was in high school when the columbine shooting happened (the one that sort of set the trend) and this was something that was talked about a lot. I thought it was a good idea at one point, but now I feel that as much info as possible is best policy. Especially in an era when "crisis actors" and pizzagate are things people are things people actually believe in.  

I just hate making anyone infamous for such a cowardly and brutal thing. I personally would rather not know their name or their life history. I don't mind hearing the stories of the heroes and the lives of the victims and survivors

[Agnostic007]

Yes, and we also need to remember that the right to keep and bear arms is what protects all the other rights in that document.

so should you own a bazooka? LAWS Rocket? I don't think anyone is seriously interested in divesting you of handguns or hunting rifles, at least I'm not and most people who are advocating gun control aren't. You're 2nd amendment is not in danger, its what is reasonable to own is what is being discussed,   agreed?

[BB]

we both don't know but it is clear that you have jumped to that conclusion. The FBI certainly dropped the ball and yes, all the checks and balances that were supposed to save us sadly didn't work. which is why this 19 year old being able to buy what.. 10 weapons in a year is a little scary.

You're the guy crying about how mentally fucked up this kid was, and how we need new gun laws, etc.... But you even admit that they ones that could've stopped it were already there, and did nothing. But your solution is just to pile on more laws?