After the Tennessee Shooting, Maybe Now Conservatives Will Turn Against Assault Weapons Because They Hate Transgenders

[HeyNorm]

Ted Bundy was a heterosexual male. Dennis Rader was a heterosexual male. The list of heterosexual males murdering people is long. What does rational thought tell us there?

Prove it. What test in the autopsies were used to determine their sexualities?

It’s just as honest to say they were closeted gays.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why would he need to use a gay dating app to stalk a nightclub, Dumbass?

Exactly

 

[Bell Huey]

No....that is a lie.........the democrats lie about the definition because they need to scare uninformed people into giving them power.....

The actual number of mass public shootings so far this year is 4....

2 Asian Senior citizens
1 short black man
1 woman who thought she was a man.....

Last year it was 12

The democrats lie about the number of mass public shootings because the real number isn't big enough to stampede normal people into giving democrats more power.......

US mass shootings, 1982–2023: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation

Dating back to at least 2005, the FBI and leading criminologists essentially defined a mass shooting as a single attack in a public place in which four or more victims were killed. We adopted that baseline for fatalities when we gathered data in 2012 on three decades worth of cases.
-------

• Here is a description of the criteria we use:
  
  
  • The perpetrator took the lives of at least four people. A 2008 FBI report identifies an individual as a mass murderer—versus a spree killer or a serial killer—if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location. (*In 2013, the US government’s fatality baseline was revised down to three; our database reflects this change beginning from Jan. 2013, as detailed above.)
  • The killings were carried out by a lone shooter. (Except in the case of the Columbine massacre and the Westside Middle School killings, which involved two shooters.)
  • The shootings occurred in a public place. (Except in the case of a party on private property in Crandon, Wisconsin, and another in Seattle, where crowds of strangers had gathered, essentially constituting a public crowd.)
  • Crimes primarily related to gang activity or armed robbery are not included, nor are mass killings that took place in private homes (often stemming from domestic violence).
• 
  
  • Perpetrators who died or were wounded during the attack are not included in the victim tallies.
  • We included a handful of cases also known as “spree killings“—cases in which the killings occurred in more than one location, but still over a short period of time, that otherwise fit the above criteria.
  ----------------------

Our research focused on indiscriminate rampages in public places resulting in four or more victims killed by the attacker. We exclude shootings stemming from more conventionally motivated crimes such as armed robbery or gang violence. (Or in which the perpetrators have not been identified.) Other news outlets and researchers have since published larger tallies that include a wide range of gun crimes in which four or more people have been either wounded or killed. While those larger datasets of multiple-victim shootings are useful for studying the broader problem of gun violence, our investigation provides an in-depth look at a distinct phenomenon—from the firearms used and mental health factors to the growing copycat problem. Tracking mass shootings is complex; we believe ours is the most useful approach for studying this specific phenomenon.



---------
The actual number of mass shootings from Mother Jones......

Here you go...the number of mass public shootings according to Mother Jones...rabid, anti gun, left wing news source.....not the NRA...

The list below comes from the old definition of 4 killed to make a shooting a mass shooting...if you now go to the link there are more than listed below...but that is because Mother Jones changed the list from the time I first posted it...and changed to obama's new standard of only 3 dead to make a mass shooting...



US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation


2022...12

2021...6

2020....2

2019....10

2018... 12

2017: 11 ( 5 according to the old standard)

2016....6

2015....4 ( obama's new standard....7)

2014....2 (4)

2013....5

2012....7

2011....3

2010....1

2009....4

2008....3

2007....4

2006....3

2005...2

2004....1

2003...1

2002 not listed so more than likely 0

2001....1

2000....1

1999....5

1998...3

1997....2

1996....1

1995...1

1994...1

1993...4

1992...2

1991...3

1990...1

1989...2

1988....1

1987...1

1986...1

1985... not listed so probably 0

1984...2

1983...not listed so probably 0

1982...1


US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation


Deer kill 200 people a year.....

Lawn mowers between 90-100 people a year....

Ladders 300 people a year....

bathtubs 350 people a year...

Cars killed over 39,000 people in 2019...



Total number of people killed in mass public shootings by year...


2022....74
2021...43
2020....5
2019....73
2018.....93
2017........117
2016......71
2015......37
2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19
2010....9
2009...39
2008...18
2007...54
2006...21
2005...17
2004...5
2003...7
2002...not listed by mother jones
2001...5
2000...7
1999...42
1998...14
1997...9
1996...6
1995...6
1994....5
1993...23
1992...9
1991...35
1990...10
1989...15
1988...7
1987...6
1986...15
1985...(none listed)
1984...28
1983 (none listed)
1982...8

No....that is a lie.........the democrats lie about the definition because they need to scare uninformed people into giving them power.....

The actual number of mass public shootings so far this year is 4....

2 Asian Senior citizens
1 short black man
1 woman who thought she was a man.....

Last year it was 12

The democrats lie about the number of mass public shootings because the real number isn't big enough to stampede normal people into giving democrats more power.......

US mass shootings, 1982–2023: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation

Dating back to at least 2005, the FBI and leading criminologists essentially defined a mass shooting as a single attack in a public place in which four or more victims were killed. We adopted that baseline for fatalities when we gathered data in 2012 on three decades worth of cases.
-------

• Here is a description of the criteria we use:
  
  
  • The perpetrator took the lives of at least four people. A 2008 FBI report identifies an individual as a mass murderer—versus a spree killer or a serial killer—if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location. (*In 2013, the US government’s fatality baseline was revised down to three; our database reflects this change beginning from Jan. 2013, as detailed above.)
  • The killings were carried out by a lone shooter. (Except in the case of the Columbine massacre and the Westside Middle School killings, which involved two shooters.)
  • The shootings occurred in a public place. (Except in the case of a party on private property in Crandon, Wisconsin, and another in Seattle, where crowds of strangers had gathered, essentially constituting a public crowd.)
  • Crimes primarily related to gang activity or armed robbery are not included, nor are mass killings that took place in private homes (often stemming from domestic violence).
• 
  
  • Perpetrators who died or were wounded during the attack are not included in the victim tallies.
  • We included a handful of cases also known as “spree killings“—cases in which the killings occurred in more than one location, but still over a short period of time, that otherwise fit the above criteria.
  ----------------------

Our research focused on indiscriminate rampages in public places resulting in four or more victims killed by the attacker. We exclude shootings stemming from more conventionally motivated crimes such as armed robbery or gang violence. (Or in which the perpetrators have not been identified.) Other news outlets and researchers have since published larger tallies that include a wide range of gun crimes in which four or more people have been either wounded or killed. While those larger datasets of multiple-victim shootings are useful for studying the broader problem of gun violence, our investigation provides an in-depth look at a distinct phenomenon—from the firearms used and mental health factors to the growing copycat problem. Tracking mass shootings is complex; we believe ours is the most useful approach for studying this specific phenomenon.



---------
The actual number of mass shootings from Mother Jones......

Here you go...the number of mass public shootings according to Mother Jones...rabid, anti gun, left wing news source.....not the NRA...

The list below comes from the old definition of 4 killed to make a shooting a mass shooting...if you now go to the link there are more than listed below...but that is because Mother Jones changed the list from the time I first posted it...and changed to obama's new standard of only 3 dead to make a mass shooting...



US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

Edited due to size.

In the United States, there are several different, but common, definitions of mass shootings. The Congressional Research Service defines mass shootings, as multiple, firearm, homicide incidents, involving 4 or more victims at one or more locations close to one another. The FBI definition is essentially the same. Often there is a distinction made between private and public mass shootings (e.g., a school, place of worship, or a business establishment). Mass shootings undertaken by foreign terrorists are not included, no matter how many people die or where the shooting occurs.

These formulations are certainly workable, but the threshold of 4 or more deaths is arbitrary. There are also important exclusions. For example, if 10 people are shot but only 2 die, the incident is not a mass shooting. Homicides by other means also are not counted. If 5 people are purposely run down and killed by an individual driving motor vehicle, the deaths do not count because a firearm was not involved. There also are inclusions that can seem curious because the motives of perpetrators are not considered when defining a mass shooting.

What is a Mass Shooting? What can be done? | Department of Criminology

crim.sas.upenn.edu

 

[Captain Caveman]

Im glad you dont believe in gjuns cause you got a true problem with rage dear

I think this is the first time I met you, you seem to be retarded and ignorant, probably in equal measure, dear

People in countries have guns, people in countries should have guns, there's only a tiny small handful of countries that ban guns.

Unlike yourself, I believe, and live in a country (UK), where the sensible in society can own guns. Some choose to, some don't. In America, the 2nd gives any retard the right to own a gun, and believe you me, if forums are representative of Americans, America is full of retards. And that's precisely why America suffers HIGH gun stats, the constitution gives any idiot guns. And the funny thing is, you feel proud about that. If the IQ in America is above 50 when it comes to guns, I'll be surprised.

 

[2aguy]

I think this is the first time I met you, you seem to be retarded and ignorant, probably in equal measure, dear

People in countries have guns, people in countries should have guns, there's only a tiny small handful of countries that ban guns.

Unlike yourself, I believe, and live in a country (UK), where the sensible in society can own guns. Some choose to, some don't. In America, the 2nd gives any retard the right to own a gun, and believe you me, if forums are representative of Americans, America is full of retards. And that's precisely why America suffers HIGH gun stats, the constitution gives any idiot guns. And the funny thing is, you feel proud about that. If the IQ in America is above 50 when it comes to guns, I'll be surprised.

Your countries murdered 15 million innocent men, women and children in just 6 years of slaughter........not war dead...people rounded up by your governments in Europe, marched into forests and death camps and murdered.....

Gun murder in the U.S. over our entire 246 year history...about 2,460,000......and the vast majority of those murdered were not innocent men, women and children, they were criminals, murdered by other criminals.....and the friends and family of criminals caught up in that lifestyle....

You have nothing to teach us as your countries over there once again head toward left wing totalitarianism...having learned nothing since 1917 about government mass murder.....

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You can't own a gun unless you
1) Have undergone a thorough background check where they talk to your coworkers, neighbors, and family.
2) Have taken a minimum required training and qualification test on a range.
3) Are required to carry insurance to cover any liability that your guns cause.
4) Are subject to strict Red Flag Laws.

Good luck with any insurance company covering anyone with gun's, so nope that's putting the responsibility or cost on good legal gun owners

I'm required to carry insurance, in order to drive my car. If a mishap occurs involving my car, and I am found to be at fault, my insurance will cover the costs.

But there's a huge factor here, that differs from any hypothetical insurance on a gun owner. The overwhelming vast majority of automotive mishaps are honest accidents. Nobody intends to cause harm, but sometimes, solid digestive waste occurs.

If I were to deliberately crash my car into another car, causing serious damage to that other car, and injury to its occupants, if it was established as a legal fact that I intended to do exact that, would my insurance cover it? Probably not. My insurance is not intended to cover deliberate misconduct on my part; it's intended to cover accidental harm. I expect that my insurance would decline to cover harm caused by deliberate malicious acts on my part, and it would certainly not be wrong for so declining.

Firearms are very rarely involved in accidental harm. Unlike cars, the overwhelming vast majority of instances in which someone is harmed with a firearm, are the result of someone intending to cause that harm. I would no more expect an insurance policy to cover such harm, that I would expect my car insurance to cover harm that I might deliberately cause with my car.

So, what point would there be in requiring any such coverage? Ultimately I see no rational basis on which to interpret demands by filth such as [user31057]Incel Joe[/user] to require any such coverage as anything more than a backward attempt at a poll tax.

3 might as well be a poll tax.

1 & 2 very easily could be, as well, depending on how expensive and difficult it is made to get the necessary background checks and training.

I actually am in favor of training, but not in any manner where any opportunity exists to make it costly or difficult to obtain.

I took JROTC in high school, and in connection therewith, I got ample training in marksmanship and firearm safety. What I would like to see is such training made part of every standard high school curriculum; and in connect therewith, everyone who has graduated from high school should then be assumed to have received such training.

 

[Captain Caveman]

So now a brit is pro gun? Many times we've discussed your anti gun views. Shut the fuck up liar.

Please supply a link to my "anti gun" posts.

I've owned shot guns, 9 year olds in the UK have shot gun licences. Since day one on the internet, I've always stated people should have guns. I've always stated that the type of gun in a society should be suitable in a society. I've always stated that not everyone is suitable to own a gun. I've always stated that police background checks, medical and driving history should be taken into consideration. I've always stated that guns should be locked in a secure cabinet when not in use. I've always stated that ammo should be stored in a separate cabinet.

You prove me wrong FUCKING RETARDED LIAR.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Unlike yourself, I believe, and live in a country (UK), where the sensible in society can own guns. Some choose to, some don't. In America, the 2nd gives any retard the right to own a gun, and believe you me, if forums are representative of Americans, America is full of retards. And that's precisely why America suffers HIGH gun stats, the constitution gives any idiot guns. And the funny thing is, you feel proud about that. If the IQ in America is above 50 when it comes to guns, I'll be surprised.

It is funny when British filth such as yourself use your shithole country as an example for how you think we Americans should run our country. (Never mind that we fought and won two wars, specifically to establish that how we Americans run our country is none of your fucking business.)

Your shithole is the very tyranny against which we fought, to establish our sovereignty and independence, to establish our right •NOT• to be a British-style shithole like your country was, then, and still is, to this very day.

The one thing for which I do have to give you British shit credit is this—You do have the courtesy, from time to time, to very vividly remind us Americans why it is that we kicked you out of our country nearly two and a half centuries ago, and to demonstrate to us that our reasons for having done so remain valid to this day.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You prove me wrong FUCKING RETARDED LIAR.

No need to do so.

You're a piece of British shit trying to tell us Americans how to run our country.

That makes you wrong, regardless of any other arguments that anyone might have to offer from either side. Being British, you have no standing, whatsoever, and no say, whatsoever, with regard to anything to do with American governance.

 

[Captain Caveman]

It is funny when British filth such as yourself use your shithole country as an example for how you think we Americans should run our country. (Never mind that we fought and won two wars, specifically to establish that how we Americans run our country is none of your fucking business.)

Your shithole is the very tyranny against which we fought, to establish our sovereignty and independence, to establish our right •NOT• to be a British-style shithole like your country was, then, and still is, to this very day.

The one thing for which I do have to give you British shit credit is this—You do have the courtesy, from time to time, to very vividly remind us Americans why it is that we kicked you out of our country nearly two and a half centuries ago, and to demonstrate to us that our reasons for having done so remain valid to this day.

Correct, the UK is such a shithole, it's above America on the freedom chart, and hence, you've just validated what a thick **** bellend American you are.

The British colonies didn't kick the British rule out, France came to the colonies resuce because their arses were getting kicked . Now I've had to school you on your own history, that's how thick as fuck you are. If you want a photo of a French general that saved the colonies arses, I will supply it to you. I took the photo when I was in Paris.

You sound all high and mighty, but only within the borders of the US, beyond that you're fucking clueless. You're so clueless, you make my little Jack Russell dogs look like Einstein.

I will school you on any any retarded American shit you try, because you're all rhetoric and zero fact. Hollywood and Disney fucked you big style, get into the real world, you're clueless.

 

[Captain Caveman]

No need to do so.

You're a piece of British shit trying to tell us Americans how to run our country.

That makes you wrong, regardless of any other arguments that anyone might have to offer from either side. Being British, you have no standing, whatsoever, and no say, whatsoever, with regard to anything to do with American governance.

And there you go, on your back showing your belly, you fucking clueless ****.

 

[2aguy]

Correct, the UK is such a shithole, it's above America on the freedom chart, and hence, you've just validated what a thick **** bellend American you are.

The British colonies didn't kick the British rule out, France came to the colonies resuce because their arses were getting kicked . Now I've had to school you on your own history, that's how thick as fuck you are. If you want a photo of a French general that saved the colonies arses, I will supply it to you. I took the photo when I was in Paris.

You sound all high and mighty, but only within the borders of the US, beyond that you're fucking clueless. You're so clueless, you make my little Jack Russell dogs look like Einstein.

I will school you on any any retarded American shit you try, because you're all rhetoric and zero fact. Hollywood and Disney fucked you big style, get into the real world, you're clueless.

And we saved your asses twice....and you learned nothing from the slaughter of 15 million innocent human beings...........

Now....when Russia pushes on to your island...with the chinese backing them.......you will enjoy the socialism you crave...

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And we saved your asses twice....and you learned nothing from the slaughter of 15 million innocent human beings...........

What a waste that was. Tens of thousands of good American men sent to their deaths, to save Europe from itself. We should have just left that whole huge shithole to Stalin and Hitler to divide up between themselves. I wonder if Captain Caveman would now be speaking Russian or German, if we hadn't intervened. But a lot more good American men would have lived, who instead, died.

 

[Nostra]

Correct, the UK is such a shithole, it's above America on the freedom chart, and hence, you've just validated what a thick **** bellend American you are.

The British colonies didn't kick the British rule out, France came to the colonies resuce because their arses were getting kicked . Now I've had to school you on your own history, that's how thick as fuck you are. If you want a photo of a French general that saved the colonies arses, I will supply it to you. I took the photo when I was in Paris.

You sound all high and mighty, but only within the borders of the US, beyond that you're fucking clueless. You're so clueless, you make my little Jack Russell dogs look like Einstein.

I will school you on any any retarded American shit you try, because you're all rhetoric and zero fact. Hollywood and Disney fucked you big style, get into the real world, you're clueless.

Go curtsy your King.

 

[Lastamender]

Well, well, well, the tables have turned!

In the past, it has almost always been a white man who walks into a public school and starts shooting innocent children from liberal families.

However, in the recent unfortunate shooting in Tennessee, it was a psychopatic transgender individual who went on a shooting spree and specifically targeted white children of religious, Republican parents.

This just goes to show that assault weapons do not discriminate.

Ban assault weapons before more conservatives get killed by a transgender again, and before minority children in a big town get slaughtered by some right-wing nut with an AR-15.

No tables have turned. We have a shooting by a kid who listened to the bullshit about gender and ruined her life and decided to take the life of the people that did not agree with her choice. It is a hate crime and has nothing to do with guns.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Go curtsy your King.

Go suck your paedophile president's cock, and tongue his rusty sheriff's badge.

 

[Nostra]

Go suck your paedophile president's cock, and tongue his rusty sheriff's badge.

No thanks. I’ll let you carry out that fantasy of yours, Simp.

 

[Captain Caveman]

No thanks. I’ll let you carry out that fantasy of yours, Simp.

Oh, you already did, your nose is brown.

 

[JoeB131]

Its proof your agreement is not necessary nor warranted to make it true.

So if he was a closeted gay, there should have been a bunch of gay people popping out of the woodwork to out him.

We do not have600 mass public shootings...that is a lie....

I said mass shootings. Why you keep throwing the word "public" in there as a qualifier is kind of nuts.

 

[Ms. Turquoise]

I absolutely do not advocate or defend the misuse of arms to harm innocent people. The right to keep and bear arms does not imply any right to use them to harm others unjustly.

You,. on the other hand, do defend the direct murder of innocent children via abortion, in far greater numbers than are harmed by any means having to do with firearms.

Even if the very worst of what you are trying to falsely accuse me of were true, it is nowhere near the scale of the evil that you support, and and you would be a hypocrite for making that accusation. Do something about the beam in your own eye before you fuss about the mote that you falsely claim is in my eye.

Do you advocate supporting the babies once they are born? Or do you only love them when they are still in the womb?