New research puts to death the “good guy with a gun” narrative

[Ray From Cleveland]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. In a mass shooting, the good guy with a gun is likely to be one of the potential victims. He has every reason in the world to put down the shooter.

You say this shit like it happens or something lol. It doesn’t. Just because it sounds reasonable that this would happen, it doesn’t mean it actually does.

Don’t give me this no concealed carry shit in Wal Mart or some shit. Gun nuts aren’t going to not carry their guns wherever they want if the gun is, you know, concealed. Remember that shooting in El Paso? No one did shit. No one ever does shit.

It does happen, moron. Recall the church mass shooting in FT Worth Texas? A good guy with a gun killed the shooter.

Not sure what happened there but is that it? That’s your backing? I mean we are talking about one case in the shitload of mass shootings we have every year.

Where's your example of crimes that were stopped other than by a good guy with a gun?

Well that happens all the time by police but either way that isn’t the point. I’m not suggesting there is some better way. I’m just pointing out that the “good guy with a gun” narrative is a myth.

How is it a myth when good guys with a gun stop crime and defend lives hundreds of thousands of times a year? If there were no good guys with a gun, what do you suppose would have been the outcome of those situations?

There really is no way to corroborate that

Sure there is. Accurately to the last one? No, that is impossible. With anti-gun sources you will find them making the opposite claim. With pro-gun sources, you will find the number in the millions. However the CDC is pretty much unbiased. The author of this article uses the CDC numbers to support his claim. The CDC report of course is dozens and dozens of pages long, but the link is there if you want to check it out.

We are not talking simply about CCW holders, we are talking about all armed citizens collectively. I know where I live news stories are constantly out there where a store owner uses a firearm to chase a thief away, and in some cases shooting at them. In other cases, a home owner who is protecting himself or family with the use of a firearm. Most of the stories barely make local news yet alone national because it happens so frequently.

Guns Prevent Thousands of Crimes Every Day, Research Shows | Lawrence W. Reed

The Center for Disease Control, in a report ordered by President Obama in 2012 following the Sandy Hook Massacre, estimated that the number of crimes prevented by guns could be as high as 3 million annually, or some 8,200 every day. And there is plenty more evidence showing that guns keep...

fee.org

 

[dannyboys]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. In a mass shooting, the good guy with a gun is likely to be one of the potential victims. He has every reason in the world to put down the shooter.

You say this shit like it happens or something lol. It doesn’t. Just because it sounds reasonable that this would happen, it doesn’t mean it actually does.

Don’t give me this no concealed carry shit in Wal Mart or some shit. Gun nuts aren’t going to not carry their guns wherever they want if the gun is, you know, concealed. Remember that shooting in El Paso? No one did shit. No one ever does shit.

It does happen, moron. Recall the church mass shooting in FT Worth Texas? A good guy with a gun killed the shooter.

Not sure what happened there but is that it? That’s your backing? I mean we are talking about one case in the shitload of mass shootings we have every year.

99% of the "shitload of mass shootings' are happening in inner city DEM controlled cities.
Take away all the illegal guns and the "mass shootings" will virtually be zero.

 

[bripat9643]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. In a mass shooting, the good guy with a gun is likely to be one of the potential victims. He has every reason in the world to put down the shooter.

You say this shit like it happens or something lol. It doesn’t. Just because it sounds reasonable that this would happen, it doesn’t mean it actually does.

Don’t give me this no concealed carry shit in Wal Mart or some shit. Gun nuts aren’t going to not carry their guns wherever they want if the gun is, you know, concealed. Remember that shooting in El Paso? No one did shit. No one ever does shit.

It does happen, moron. Recall the church mass shooting in FT Worth Texas? A good guy with a gun killed the shooter.

Not sure what happened there but is that it? That’s your backing? I mean we are talking about one case in the shitload of mass shootings we have every year.

Where's your example of crimes that were stopped other than by a good guy with a gun?

Well that happens all the time by police but either way that isn’t the point. I’m not suggesting there is some better way. I’m just pointing out that the “good guy with a gun” narrative is a myth.

You failed to "point out" anything except lies. Furthermore, police seldom stop crimes. They arrive after the fact. That's why people need to be armed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. In a mass shooting, the good guy with a gun is likely to be one of the potential victims. He has every reason in the world to put down the shooter.

You say this shit like it happens or something lol. It doesn’t. Just because it sounds reasonable that this would happen, it doesn’t mean it actually does.

Don’t give me this no concealed carry shit in Wal Mart or some shit. Gun nuts aren’t going to not carry their guns wherever they want if the gun is, you know, concealed. Remember that shooting in El Paso? No one did shit. No one ever does shit.

It does happen, moron. Recall the church mass shooting in FT Worth Texas? A good guy with a gun killed the shooter.

Not sure what happened there but is that it? That’s your backing? I mean we are talking about one case in the shitload of mass shootings we have every year.

99% of the "shitload of mass shootings' are happening in inner city DEM controlled cities.
Take away all the illegal guns and the "mass shootings" will virtually be zero.

The problem with the Democrat way of doing things is they give a slap on the hand to those who use illegal firearms for crimes. Then when things get out of control, they want the law abiding citizens to give up their guns.

A five year minimum prison term for illegally carrying a weapon, and a fifteen year term for using an illegal weapon in the commission of a crime would give enough of them something to think about before leaving their home armed.

Look at how well Stop and Frisk worked in NYC. Crime and murders both went down.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

New research puts the 'good guy with a gun' idea to rest: Loose concealed-carry laws are linked to more firearm homicides

States with looser concealed-carry laws have higher rates of gun homicide. And higher gun-ownership rates are associated with more mass shootings.

www.yahoo.com

A new study found that states with looser concealed-carry gun laws have higher rates of gun homicide.

The results also showed that higher levels of gun ownership are associated with more mass shootings.

The study suggests the US could reduce gun violence by lowering levels of gun ownership and passing stricter concealed-carry laws.

Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

The "good guy with a gun" theory goes like this: If more well-intentioned people carry guns, there's a higher chance of stopping a violent shooter.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works in real life, according to new research published in the journal Justice Quarterly. The study found that laws allowing more people to carry guns in public are associated with a rise in gun violence. The results also showed that the higher a state's gun-ownership rate, the more likely a mass shooting is.

Bullshit. The crime rate went down in every state that adopted concealed carry. It's almost certain the study is based on flawed assumptions.

Should I even bother asking for a source?

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth

Yeah dude. No one ever said people haven’t defended themselves with guns. That is completely besides the point of what this article is saying is that “a good guy with a gun” does nothing to prevent mass shootings. More gun ownership is correlated with more gun violence. These are the facts that matter.

Mass shootings aren't a problem anywhere near as bad as all the blacks killing each other in democrat cities.

THAT actually deserves your attention but we all know you're too cowardly to create a topic on the subject.

 

[2aguy]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. In a mass shooting, the good guy with a gun is likely to be one of the potential victims. He has every reason in the world to put down the shooter.

You say this shit like it happens or something lol. It doesn’t. Just because it sounds reasonable that this would happen, it doesn’t mean it actually does.

Don’t give me this no concealed carry shit in Wal Mart or some shit. Gun nuts aren’t going to not carry their guns wherever they want if the gun is, you know, concealed. Remember that shooting in El Paso? No one did shit. No one ever does shit.

True.

The notion of a ‘gun free zone’ is as much a myth as ‘good guy with a gun.’

A business owner who prohibits firearms on his property isn’t going to know a patron is carrying concealed.

Moron......the vast majority of normal, law abiding gun owners do not want to risk a misdemeanor conviction if they are caught with a gun in a gun free zone.....or in some places a felony....so a gun free zone is more or less going to be a legal-gun free zone.

And the vast majority, over 90% of mass public shootings take place in gun free zones...you can't lie about that.

 

[2aguy]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. In a mass shooting, the good guy with a gun is likely to be one of the potential victims. He has every reason in the world to put down the shooter.

You say this shit like it happens or something lol. It doesn’t. Just because it sounds reasonable that this would happen, it doesn’t mean it actually does.

Don’t give me this no concealed carry shit in Wal Mart or some shit. Gun nuts aren’t going to not carry their guns wherever they want if the gun is, you know, concealed. Remember that shooting in El Paso? No one did shit. No one ever does shit.

It does happen, moron. Recall the church mass shooting in FT Worth Texas? A good guy with a gun killed the shooter.

Not sure what happened there but is that it? That’s your backing? I mean we are talking about one case in the shitload of mass shootings we have every year.

99% of the "shitload of mass shootings' are happening in inner city DEM controlled cities.
Take away all the illegal guns and the "mass shootings" will virtually be zero.

The problem with the Democrat way of doing things is they give a slap on the hand to those who use illegal firearms for crimes. Then when things get out of control, they want the law abiding citizens to give up their guns.

A five year minimum prison term for illegally carrying a weapon, and a fifteen year term for using an illegal weapon in the commission of a crime would give enough of them something to think about before leaving their home armed.

Look at how well Stop and Frisk worked in NYC. Crime and murders both went down.

I would up that.....if a felon is caught with an illegal gun....30 years........that would stop the criminals from carrying guns as a habit.

 

[2aguy]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. In a mass shooting, the good guy with a gun is likely to be one of the potential victims. He has every reason in the world to put down the shooter.

You say this shit like it happens or something lol. It doesn’t. Just because it sounds reasonable that this would happen, it doesn’t mean it actually does.

Don’t give me this no concealed carry shit in Wal Mart or some shit. Gun nuts aren’t going to not carry their guns wherever they want if the gun is, you know, concealed. Remember that shooting in El Paso? No one did shit. No one ever does shit.

It does happen, moron. Recall the church mass shooting in FT Worth Texas? A good guy with a gun killed the shooter.

Not sure what happened there but is that it? That’s your backing? I mean we are talking about one case in the shitload of mass shootings we have every year.

Shitload? There were 10 mass public shootings in 2019.....in a country of over 320 million people....the total number of people killed in those mass public shootings was 73 people......

knives were used to kill 1,836.

A rental truck in Nice, France was used to murder 86 people in one attack.

 

[2aguy]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. In a mass shooting, the good guy with a gun is likely to be one of the potential victims. He has every reason in the world to put down the shooter.

You say this shit like it happens or something lol. It doesn’t. Just because it sounds reasonable that this would happen, it doesn’t mean it actually does.

Don’t give me this no concealed carry shit in Wal Mart or some shit. Gun nuts aren’t going to not carry their guns wherever they want if the gun is, you know, concealed. Remember that shooting in El Paso? No one did shit. No one ever does shit.

It does happen, moron. Recall the church mass shooting in FT Worth Texas? A good guy with a gun killed the shooter.

Not sure what happened there but is that it? That’s your backing? I mean we are talking about one case in the shitload of mass shootings we have every year.

Those mass shootings all occured in "gun free" zones, moron. You can thank yourself for the killings.

No that gun free zone shit is a myth. The study
That makes that claim is bullshit:

Louis Klarevas, a University of Massachusetts professor and the author of “Rampage Nation: Securing America from Mass Shootings,” dismissed Lott’s reasoning, noting that plenty of mass shootings occurred in residential settings and querying why those victims should be overlooked. Everytown’s director of research and implementation, Sarah Tofte, went further. “The claim that so-called ‘gun-free zones’ attract mass shooters doesn’t stand up to scrutiny,” she told us via email. “It’s just not what the numbers show. We look closely at the data on mass shootings, and it shows that relatively few take place in areas where civilians are prohibited from carrying firearms. In fact, the vast majority of mass shootings take place in private homes and are often tied to domestic violence.” The organization’s data found that incidents that took place in private homes accounted for 63 percent of the total number of mass shootings they examined between 2009 and 2016”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/10/do-98-percent-of-mass-public-shootings-happen-in-gun-free-zones/?outputType=amp

They are calling gang shootings mass public shootings...they are lying.....that you would depend on a source that openly lies about the data set they use to inflate their numbers shows you don't understand the issue....

The actual number of mass public shootings, as defined by the FBI, in 2019 was 10.....they occurred in gun free zones.......

US mass shootings, 1982-2020: 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.


Total murders by mass public shooters...1982-2017


795


knife murders.....2009-2013.....

2009----1,836
2010----1,933
2011----1,611
2012---1,769
2013---1.956
2015....1,589
2016....1,632
2017....1,591
Rifle murder....

2009---351
2010---367
2011---332
2012---298
2013---285

---------
The actual number of mass shootings from Mother Jones.......tell me Mother Jones is part of the NRA moron.....

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...

I have put obama's updated number in parenthesis..........

we will see....


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

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


Rental Truck in Nice, France, 86 murdered in 5 minutes...

Total number murdered in mass public shootings by year...

Lawn mower deaths every year.... more than 75

(https://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2007/0419-lawn-mowers.php)
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

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf


Cars, Accidental deaths 2013......35,369

Poisons...accidental deaths 2013....38,851

Alcohol...accidental deaths 2013...29,001

gravity....accidental falling deaths 2013...30,208
Accidental drowning.....3,391
Accidental exposure to smoke, fire and flames.....2,760

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. In a mass shooting, the good guy with a gun is likely to be one of the potential victims. He has every reason in the world to put down the shooter.

You say this shit like it happens or something lol. It doesn’t. Just because it sounds reasonable that this would happen, it doesn’t mean it actually does.

Don’t give me this no concealed carry shit in Wal Mart or some shit. Gun nuts aren’t going to not carry their guns wherever they want if the gun is, you know, concealed. Remember that shooting in El Paso? No one did shit. No one ever does shit.

True.

The notion of a ‘gun free zone’ is as much a myth as ‘good guy with a gun.’

A business owner who prohibits firearms on his property isn’t going to know a patron is carrying concealed.

Moron......the vast majority of normal, law abiding gun owners do not want to risk a misdemeanor conviction if they are caught with a gun in a gun free zone.....or in some places a felony....so a gun free zone is more or less going to be a legal-gun free zone.

And the vast majority, over 90% of mass public shootings take place in gun free zones...you can't lie about that.

Not only that, but a CCW holder will have his or her licensed removed for carrying in a gun-free zone, and may lose their ability to get their license back for life. It's simply not worth it to carry in a place that doesn't permit guns.

 

[2aguy]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. In a mass shooting, the good guy with a gun is likely to be one of the potential victims. He has every reason in the world to put down the shooter.

You say this shit like it happens or something lol. It doesn’t. Just because it sounds reasonable that this would happen, it doesn’t mean it actually does.

Don’t give me this no concealed carry shit in Wal Mart or some shit. Gun nuts aren’t going to not carry their guns wherever they want if the gun is, you know, concealed. Remember that shooting in El Paso? No one did shit. No one ever does shit.

It does happen, moron. Recall the church mass shooting in FT Worth Texas? A good guy with a gun killed the shooter.

Not sure what happened there but is that it? That’s your backing? I mean we are talking about one case in the shitload of mass shootings we have every year.

Those mass shootings all occured in "gun free" zones, moron. You can thank yourself for the killings.

No that gun free zone shit is a myth. The study
That makes that claim is bullshit:

Louis Klarevas, a University of Massachusetts professor and the author of “Rampage Nation: Securing America from Mass Shootings,” dismissed Lott’s reasoning, noting that plenty of mass shootings occurred in residential settings and querying why those victims should be overlooked. Everytown’s director of research and implementation, Sarah Tofte, went further. “The claim that so-called ‘gun-free zones’ attract mass shooters doesn’t stand up to scrutiny,” she told us via email. “It’s just not what the numbers show. We look closely at the data on mass shootings, and it shows that relatively few take place in areas where civilians are prohibited from carrying firearms. In fact, the vast majority of mass shootings take place in private homes and are often tied to domestic violence.” The organization’s data found that incidents that took place in private homes accounted for 63 percent of the total number of mass shootings they examined between 2009 and 2016”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/10/do-98-percent-of-mass-public-shootings-happen-in-gun-free-zones/?outputType=amp

Of course, your author uses a politicized definition of "mass shooting" that says three people being shot is a mass shooting, and it also includes gang shootings. It's virtually worthless for scientific purposes.

Lol virtually worthless huh? Okay so what is the actual scientific definition of a mass shooting? You cite the number and source.

Here.......from the Federal Bureau of Investigation......

US mass shootings, 1982-2020: 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.


Total murders by mass public shooters...1982-2017


795


knife murders.....2009-2013.....

2009----1,836
2010----1,933
2011----1,611
2012---1,769
2013---1.956
2015....1,589
2016....1,632
2017....1,591
Rifle murder....

2009---351
2010---367
2011---332
2012---298
2013---285

---------
The actual number of mass shootings from Mother Jones.......tell me Mother Jones is part of the NRA moron.....

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...

I have put obama's updated number in parenthesis..........

we will see....


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

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


Rental Truck in Nice, France, 86 murdered in 5 minutes...

Total number murdered in mass public shootings by year...

Lawn mower deaths every year.... more than 75

(https://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2007/0419-lawn-mowers.php)
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

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf


Cars, Accidental deaths 2013......35,369

Poisons...accidental deaths 2013....38,851

Alcohol...accidental deaths 2013...29,001

gravity....accidental falling deaths 2013...30,208
Accidental drowning.....3,391
Accidental exposure to smoke, fire and flames.....2,760

 

[2aguy]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. In a mass shooting, the good guy with a gun is likely to be one of the potential victims. He has every reason in the world to put down the shooter.

You say this shit like it happens or something lol. It doesn’t. Just because it sounds reasonable that this would happen, it doesn’t mean it actually does.

Don’t give me this no concealed carry shit in Wal Mart or some shit. Gun nuts aren’t going to not carry their guns wherever they want if the gun is, you know, concealed. Remember that shooting in El Paso? No one did shit. No one ever does shit.

It does happen, moron. Recall the church mass shooting in FT Worth Texas? A good guy with a gun killed the shooter.

Not sure what happened there but is that it? That’s your backing? I mean we are talking about one case in the shitload of mass shootings we have every year.

Those mass shootings all occured in "gun free" zones, moron. You can thank yourself for the killings.

No that gun free zone shit is a myth. The study
That makes that claim is bullshit:

Louis Klarevas, a University of Massachusetts professor and the author of “Rampage Nation: Securing America from Mass Shootings,” dismissed Lott’s reasoning, noting that plenty of mass shootings occurred in residential settings and querying why those victims should be overlooked. Everytown’s director of research and implementation, Sarah Tofte, went further. “The claim that so-called ‘gun-free zones’ attract mass shooters doesn’t stand up to scrutiny,” she told us via email. “It’s just not what the numbers show. We look closely at the data on mass shootings, and it shows that relatively few take place in areas where civilians are prohibited from carrying firearms. In fact, the vast majority of mass shootings take place in private homes and are often tied to domestic violence.” The organization’s data found that incidents that took place in private homes accounted for 63 percent of the total number of mass shootings they examined between 2009 and 2016”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/10/do-98-percent-of-mass-public-shootings-happen-in-gun-free-zones/?outputType=amp

Of course, your author uses a politicized definition of "mass shooting" that says three people being shot is a mass shooting, and it also includes gang shootings. It's virtually worthless for scientific purposes.

Lol virtually worthless huh? Okay so what is the actual scientific definition of a mass shooting? You cite the number and source.

Most people use the FBI definition of mass shootings which is four or more people being shot. The problem is there are many cases of family murder/ suicides that are considered as mass shootings under that definition. There are also events where a drive-by shoots several people, and they all sustained non life threatening injuries.

So there is a difference between mass shootings and mass murders, but they all have the same definition of what "mass" means.

The definition used to be 4...but that wasn't providing enough mass public shootings to push gun control so obama lowered the number to 3......and it still didn't increase the number of yearly mass public shootings that much....

 

[2aguy]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. In a mass shooting, the good guy with a gun is likely to be one of the potential victims. He has every reason in the world to put down the shooter.

You say this shit like it happens or something lol. It doesn’t. Just because it sounds reasonable that this would happen, it doesn’t mean it actually does.

Don’t give me this no concealed carry shit in Wal Mart or some shit. Gun nuts aren’t going to not carry their guns wherever they want if the gun is, you know, concealed. Remember that shooting in El Paso? No one did shit. No one ever does shit.

It does happen, moron. Recall the church mass shooting in FT Worth Texas? A good guy with a gun killed the shooter.

Not sure what happened there but is that it? That’s your backing? I mean we are talking about one case in the shitload of mass shootings we have every year.

Those mass shootings all occured in "gun free" zones, moron. You can thank yourself for the killings.

No that gun free zone shit is a myth. The study
That makes that claim is bullshit:

Louis Klarevas, a University of Massachusetts professor and the author of “Rampage Nation: Securing America from Mass Shootings,” dismissed Lott’s reasoning, noting that plenty of mass shootings occurred in residential settings and querying why those victims should be overlooked. Everytown’s director of research and implementation, Sarah Tofte, went further. “The claim that so-called ‘gun-free zones’ attract mass shooters doesn’t stand up to scrutiny,” she told us via email. “It’s just not what the numbers show. We look closely at the data on mass shootings, and it shows that relatively few take place in areas where civilians are prohibited from carrying firearms. In fact, the vast majority of mass shootings take place in private homes and are often tied to domestic violence.” The organization’s data found that incidents that took place in private homes accounted for 63 percent of the total number of mass shootings they examined between 2009 and 2016”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/10/do-98-percent-of-mass-public-shootings-happen-in-gun-free-zones/?outputType=amp

Of course, your author uses a politicized definition of "mass shooting" that says three people being shot is a mass shooting, and it also includes gang shootings. It's virtually worthless for scientific purposes.

Lol virtually worthless huh? Okay so what is the actual scientific definition of a mass shooting? You cite the number and source.

Most people use the FBI definition of mass shootings which is four or more people being shot. The problem is there are many cases of family murder/ suicides that are considered as mass shootings under that definition. There are also events where a drive-by shoots several people, and they all sustained non life threatening injuries.

So there is a difference between mass shootings and mass murders, but they all have the same definition of what "mass" means.

But for the purpose of these studies, the term has to be defined with a number. Right now there is no other arbitrary number to go off of.

Of course, either way, the large majority of mass shootings of any number still don’t have a good guy with a gun stopping it. It just isn’t a deterrent. It sounds like it would be, sure. It’s not though.

When an American has their legal gun with them during a mass public shooting.......their success rate when they choose to intervene, either stopping the attack or simply reducing the number of deaths...is 94%......

This data was taken from actual encounters by armed Americans...

Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events [FBI]

Of all the active shooter events there were 33 at which an armed citizen was present. Of those, Armed Citizens were successful at stopping the Active shooter 75.8% of the time (25 incidents) and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% (6) of incidents. In only 2 of the 33 incidents (6.1%) was the Armed Citizen(s) not helpful in any way in stopping the active shooter or reducing the loss of life.

Thus the headline of our report that Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events.


In the 2 incidents at which the armed citizen “failed” to stop or slow the active shooter, one is the previously mentioned incident with hunters. The other is an incident in which the CCWer was shot in the back in a Las Vegas Walmart when he failed to identify that there were 2 Active Shooters involved in the attack. He neglected to identify the one that shot him in the back while he was trying to ambush the other perpetrator.

We also decided to look at the breakdown of events that took place in gun free zones and the relative death toll from events in gun free zones vs non-gun-free zones.

Of the 283 incidents in our data pool, we were unable to identify if the event took place in a gun-free zone in a large number (41%) of the events. Most of the events took place at a business, church, home, or other places at which as a rule of law it is not a gun free zone but potentially could have been declared one by the property owner. Without any information in the FBI study or any indication one way or the other from the news reports, we have indicated that event with a question mark.

If you look at all of the Active Shooter events (pie chart on the top) you see that for those which we have the information, almost twice as many took place in gun free zones than not; but realistically the vast majority of those for which we have no information (indicated as ?) are probably NOT gun free zones.

If you isolate just the events at which 8 or more people were killed the data paints a different picture (pie chart on the bottom). In these incidents, 77.8% took place in a gun-free zone suggesting that gun free zones lead to a higher death rate vs active shooter events in general

=====

One of the final metrics we thought was important to consider is the potential tendency for armed citizens to injure or kill innocent people in their attempt to “save the day.” A common point in political discussions is to point out the lack of training of most armed citizens and the decrease in safety inherent in their presence during violent encounters.

As you can see below, however, at the 33 incidents at which Armed Citizens were present, there were zero situations at which the Armed Citizen injured or killed an innocent person. It never happened.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. In a mass shooting, the good guy with a gun is likely to be one of the potential victims. He has every reason in the world to put down the shooter.

You say this shit like it happens or something lol. It doesn’t. Just because it sounds reasonable that this would happen, it doesn’t mean it actually does.

Don’t give me this no concealed carry shit in Wal Mart or some shit. Gun nuts aren’t going to not carry their guns wherever they want if the gun is, you know, concealed. Remember that shooting in El Paso? No one did shit. No one ever does shit.

It does happen, moron. Recall the church mass shooting in FT Worth Texas? A good guy with a gun killed the shooter.

Not sure what happened there but is that it? That’s your backing? I mean we are talking about one case in the shitload of mass shootings we have every year.

Those mass shootings all occured in "gun free" zones, moron. You can thank yourself for the killings.

No that gun free zone shit is a myth. The study
That makes that claim is bullshit:

Louis Klarevas, a University of Massachusetts professor and the author of “Rampage Nation: Securing America from Mass Shootings,” dismissed Lott’s reasoning, noting that plenty of mass shootings occurred in residential settings and querying why those victims should be overlooked. Everytown’s director of research and implementation, Sarah Tofte, went further. “The claim that so-called ‘gun-free zones’ attract mass shooters doesn’t stand up to scrutiny,” she told us via email. “It’s just not what the numbers show. We look closely at the data on mass shootings, and it shows that relatively few take place in areas where civilians are prohibited from carrying firearms. In fact, the vast majority of mass shootings take place in private homes and are often tied to domestic violence.” The organization’s data found that incidents that took place in private homes accounted for 63 percent of the total number of mass shootings they examined between 2009 and 2016”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/10/do-98-percent-of-mass-public-shootings-happen-in-gun-free-zones/?outputType=amp

Of course, your author uses a politicized definition of "mass shooting" that says three people being shot is a mass shooting, and it also includes gang shootings. It's virtually worthless for scientific purposes.

Lol virtually worthless huh? Okay so what is the actual scientific definition of a mass shooting? You cite the number and source.

Most people use the FBI definition of mass shootings which is four or more people being shot. The problem is there are many cases of family murder/ suicides that are considered as mass shootings under that definition. There are also events where a drive-by shoots several people, and they all sustained non life threatening injuries.

So there is a difference between mass shootings and mass murders, but they all have the same definition of what "mass" means.

The definition used to be 4...but that wasn't providing enough mass public shootings to push gun control so obama lowered the number to 3......and it still didn't increase the number of yearly mass public shootings that much....

Do you have a link to that? Wiki says it's still four:

Mass shooting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[2aguy]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. In a mass shooting, the good guy with a gun is likely to be one of the potential victims. He has every reason in the world to put down the shooter.

You say this shit like it happens or something lol. It doesn’t. Just because it sounds reasonable that this would happen, it doesn’t mean it actually does.

Don’t give me this no concealed carry shit in Wal Mart or some shit. Gun nuts aren’t going to not carry their guns wherever they want if the gun is, you know, concealed. Remember that shooting in El Paso? No one did shit. No one ever does shit.

It does happen, moron. Recall the church mass shooting in FT Worth Texas? A good guy with a gun killed the shooter.

Not sure what happened there but is that it? That’s your backing? I mean we are talking about one case in the shitload of mass shootings we have every year.

Those mass shootings all occured in "gun free" zones, moron. You can thank yourself for the killings.

No that gun free zone shit is a myth. The study
That makes that claim is bullshit:

Louis Klarevas, a University of Massachusetts professor and the author of “Rampage Nation: Securing America from Mass Shootings,” dismissed Lott’s reasoning, noting that plenty of mass shootings occurred in residential settings and querying why those victims should be overlooked. Everytown’s director of research and implementation, Sarah Tofte, went further. “The claim that so-called ‘gun-free zones’ attract mass shooters doesn’t stand up to scrutiny,” she told us via email. “It’s just not what the numbers show. We look closely at the data on mass shootings, and it shows that relatively few take place in areas where civilians are prohibited from carrying firearms. In fact, the vast majority of mass shootings take place in private homes and are often tied to domestic violence.” The organization’s data found that incidents that took place in private homes accounted for 63 percent of the total number of mass shootings they examined between 2009 and 2016”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/10/do-98-percent-of-mass-public-shootings-happen-in-gun-free-zones/?outputType=amp

Of course, your author uses a politicized definition of "mass shooting" that says three people being shot is a mass shooting, and it also includes gang shootings. It's virtually worthless for scientific purposes.

Lol virtually worthless huh? Okay so what is the actual scientific definition of a mass shooting? You cite the number and source.

Most people use the FBI definition of mass shootings which is four or more people being shot. The problem is there are many cases of family murder/ suicides that are considered as mass shootings under that definition. There are also events where a drive-by shoots several people, and they all sustained non life threatening injuries.

So there is a difference between mass shootings and mass murders, but they all have the same definition of what "mass" means.

The definition used to be 4...but that wasn't providing enough mass public shootings to push gun control so obama lowered the number to 3......and it still didn't increase the number of yearly mass public shootings that much....

Do you have a link to that? Wiki says it's still four:

Mass shooting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here.....

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.

(It is important to note that there have been many similar indiscriminate gun rampages in public places—but resulting in fewer fatalities—that would otherwise be included in our dataset. In that regard, ours is a conservative measure of the problem.)

In January 2013, a mandate for federal investigation of mass shootings authorized by President Barack Obama lowered that baseline to three or more victims killed. Accordingly, we include attacks dating from January 2013 in which three or more victims were killed.

A Guide to Mass Shootings in America

Here is Mother Jones’ groundbreaking database, now documenting 149 public attacks since 1982.

www.motherjones.com

 

[2aguy]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. In a mass shooting, the good guy with a gun is likely to be one of the potential victims. He has every reason in the world to put down the shooter.

You say this shit like it happens or something lol. It doesn’t. Just because it sounds reasonable that this would happen, it doesn’t mean it actually does.

Don’t give me this no concealed carry shit in Wal Mart or some shit. Gun nuts aren’t going to not carry their guns wherever they want if the gun is, you know, concealed. Remember that shooting in El Paso? No one did shit. No one ever does shit.

It does happen, moron. Recall the church mass shooting in FT Worth Texas? A good guy with a gun killed the shooter.

Not sure what happened there but is that it? That’s your backing? I mean we are talking about one case in the shitload of mass shootings we have every year.

Those mass shootings all occured in "gun free" zones, moron. You can thank yourself for the killings.

No that gun free zone shit is a myth. The study
That makes that claim is bullshit:

Louis Klarevas, a University of Massachusetts professor and the author of “Rampage Nation: Securing America from Mass Shootings,” dismissed Lott’s reasoning, noting that plenty of mass shootings occurred in residential settings and querying why those victims should be overlooked. Everytown’s director of research and implementation, Sarah Tofte, went further. “The claim that so-called ‘gun-free zones’ attract mass shooters doesn’t stand up to scrutiny,” she told us via email. “It’s just not what the numbers show. We look closely at the data on mass shootings, and it shows that relatively few take place in areas where civilians are prohibited from carrying firearms. In fact, the vast majority of mass shootings take place in private homes and are often tied to domestic violence.” The organization’s data found that incidents that took place in private homes accounted for 63 percent of the total number of mass shootings they examined between 2009 and 2016”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/10/do-98-percent-of-mass-public-shootings-happen-in-gun-free-zones/?outputType=amp

Of course, your author uses a politicized definition of "mass shooting" that says three people being shot is a mass shooting, and it also includes gang shootings. It's virtually worthless for scientific purposes.

Lol virtually worthless huh? Okay so what is the actual scientific definition of a mass shooting? You cite the number and source.

Most people use the FBI definition of mass shootings which is four or more people being shot. The problem is there are many cases of family murder/ suicides that are considered as mass shootings under that definition. There are also events where a drive-by shoots several people, and they all sustained non life threatening injuries.

So there is a difference between mass shootings and mass murders, but they all have the same definition of what "mass" means.

The definition used to be 4...but that wasn't providing enough mass public shootings to push gun control so obama lowered the number to 3......and it still didn't increase the number of yearly mass public shootings that much....

Do you have a link to that? Wiki says it's still four:

Mass shooting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I really like using the Mother Jones data set..........they are a radical, left wing, anti-gun extremist source......but they actually document every single mass publilc shooting according to the actual definition...they give a lot of details too.......


And it drives the left wing morons nuts because they can't claim the data came from the "NRA..."

 

[9thIDdoc]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. People have a legal and moral responsibility to protect themselves, their loved ones and other innocents when it is possible to do so. People unwilling to accept that responsibility are simply a waste of good oxygen.

Wrong

I have no legal obligation to protect the general public from criminals.

SCOTUS has ruled that the cops have no legal obligation to render aid to the public so are you trying to tell me that I as a private citizen and concealed carry permit holder have more of an obligation to protect the general public that the police do?

I'm telling you that how you interpret what SCOTUS has ruled is well and truly screwed. No, the police are not obligated to protect everyone everywhere all the time. That is simply recognition of the impossible. Because they simply cannot BE everywhere and know everything all the time. However that does not relieve law enforcement officers the duty of enforcing the law and murder happens to be against the law.
Not being a law enforcement officer does not relieve anyone from the moral obligation to intervene when another person is being subjected to injury or death whether they be armed and/or a permit holder or not. And in some circumstances you can also be held legally responsible. A person who has the chance to help and does not is simply a worthless coward in my opinion whatever the law has to say.
____________________________________________________________
Negligent Death Law and Legal Definition
Negligent death is a civil action which charges another with being liable for injury resulting in another's death by reason of negligent actions or a failure to act which could foreseeably result in death.
____________________________________________________________
Criminal negligence refers to conduct in which a person ignores a known or obvious risk, or disregards the life and safety of others. Federal and state courts describe this behavior as a form of recklessness, where the person acts significantly different than an ordinary person under similar circumstances.

criminal negligence is a form of - Google Search

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[easyt65]

New research puts the 'good guy with a gun' idea to rest: Loose concealed-carry laws are linked to more firearm homicides

States with looser concealed-carry laws have higher rates of gun homicide. And higher gun-ownership rates are associated with more mass shootings.

www.yahoo.com

A new study found that states with looser concealed-carry gun laws have higher rates of gun homicide.

The results also showed that higher levels of gun ownership are associated with more mass shootings.

The study suggests the US could reduce gun violence by lowering levels of gun ownership and passing stricter concealed-carry laws.

Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

The "good guy with a gun" theory goes like this: If more well-intentioned people carry guns, there's a higher chance of stopping a violent shooter.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works in real life, according to new research published in the journal Justice Quarterly. The study found that laws allowing more people to carry guns in public are associated with a rise in gun violence. The results also showed that the higher a state's gun-ownership rate, the more likely a mass shooting is.

'A new study found that states with looser concealed-carry gun laws have higher rates of gun homicide.'

It has been known that the cities with some of the strictest gun laws in the US have the worst gun violence / murder rate in the country.

These states have seen their gun crime / murder rate clime anywhere from 75% higher to 150% higher in the last several months.

Most alarmingly America saw Hollywood radicals, Democrats - to include Obama and Joe Biden's campaign - pay the bails for violent domestic terrorists looting, burning, assaulting, and murdering, putting them back on the streets. Obama reportedly paid the bail for a prominent young Chicago terrorist lawyer who threw a Molotov cocktail through a cop car window....isn't that special?!

Other Democrats used COVID as an excuse to release the most violent felons in their jails, to have many of them rpb, rape, murder, and be sent back to jail within 24hrs of being released.

...but the idea of good guys with funs has been 'debunked', fueling the liberal extremist agenda of confiscating guns from everyone.

In the midst of manufactured / facilitated violence during which Democrats turned their backs on Americans under fire / preyed upon, just as they did during the Benghazi attack, Democrats stormed law-abiding citizens' homes and stole all of their weapons for using their legally / Constitutionally-owned weapons to protect themselves and their homes from violent, burning, looting, destroying trespassing domestic terrorists who threatened to kill the homeowners and burn down their house.

Democrats sought to punish Americans for attempting to protect their lives and their stores / property with legally-owned weapons.

The Dems sought to create chaos and facilitate destruction and murder by villainizing the police instead of violent foreign-funded domestic terrorists, defunding them, eliminating critical law enforcement units, stripping them of their tools to control such mobs and those needed for self-protection. Their actions directly resulted in '911' calls not being answered, violence that overwhelmed the law enforcement's ability to respond, serve, and protect law-abiding citizens.

Much like how their violent rhetoric and criminal facilitation incited an assassination attempt on GOP politicians - 1 being seriously wounded - the politicians have openly called for violent protests, the destruction of statues / monuments, have facilitated the violence, and have bailed violent criminals out of jail to continue to destroy public and private property.

Several hundred 911 calls went unanswered this past weekend as there were simply no one to protect Americans from this Liberal Democrat-manufactured violent divisive hell. With no one to count on for protection people are left with having to fend for themselves.

THIS is the result of a direct failure of Democrats in their #1 responsibility to the people they represent - provide for basic safety and security of the American people.

Thanks to the Democrats for demonstrating what THEIR America will look like under Democrat control...right before the election.

Gun sales are at a record level right now thanks to Democrats giving foreign-funded domestic terrorists free reign to 'destroy America / Burn America down'....

Democrats like Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, Comrade Feinstein, & Schumer absolutely HATE America with as much vile animosity humanly possible....because Americans REJECTED them in the 2016 election.

They hate Americans for breaking away from the status quo in which they dictated who their leaders would be, how they threw the criminals to the curb, stripped the Democrats of their control and power, and how they have embraced the most successful President in decades, in some cases 'EVER'......

The Democrats have proven they will lie, cheat, steal, collaborate with foreign enemies, literally kill, support / facilitate foreign and domestic terrorist attacks...literally loot, burn, destroy, assault, murder, and burn this country to the ground just for them to get back their power and control.

They have trampled both Constitution and Rule of law, they have obliterated, not just infringed upon, American citizens' Constitutional and civil rights in the name of a virus whose mortality rate is less than the annual Influenza / flu.

And, again, having undermined our local / state / federal law enforcement, leaving Americans to have to fend for themselves, gun sales have sly-rocketed.

I just read the story where violent BLM terrorists attempted to stop an unarmed driver's car, caused them to crash while trying to getaway - they were dragged out of the car, beaten and nearly stomped to death....

I personally wish the individual would have had a CCP and a weapon in the car. I would have loved to have read the article tell how the innocent person in the car had shot one or two of the terrorists who had surrounded their car and had tried to break in.

I would loved to have read how sever 'good guys' with CCPs and weapons had responded to the terrorists trying to pull the person from the car, who beat them and attempted to stop them to death, and had instead BLOWN (shot) the attackers off of the victim, protected the victim, and had left the shot terrorists to bleed out / die on the street as a f*ing WARNING to these 'false-courage-mob-mentality' terrorists.

I would love to read how some 'good guy' with a CCP and a weapon had shot and murdered some POS gang member / murderous POS in Chicago before they could shoot and murder one more baby, one more child, one more woman, one more innocent person.....

The failed leadership, incompetence, and support for these thugs, criminals, and terrorists by liberal politicians in this city who have completely failed in their #1 priority - which is to protect their constituents - is why they have out-of-control, historic sky-rocketing criminal / shooting / murder rates.......

and they are FORCING the American people to arm themselves and protect themselves and their own families and property.

Want to keep more of that from happening?

Then failed, incompetent, pro-thug/criminal/terrorist liberal politicians either get off your ass, embrace the Constitution, Rule of Law, and law enforcement - regain control of your cities .... or GTFO of the way - resign, step down, go the f* away - and let some one who can / will do it.

 

[easyt65]

MAYHEM IN PORTLAND — Let’s hope this guy is still alive…

After the fateful kick… What led up to the incident… …

www.citizenfreepress.com

Some 'good guy with a gun' should have blown this SB away....

 

[Billy000]

New research puts the 'good guy with a gun' idea to rest: Loose concealed-carry laws are linked to more firearm homicides

States with looser concealed-carry laws have higher rates of gun homicide. And higher gun-ownership rates are associated with more mass shootings.

www.yahoo.com

A new study found that states with looser concealed-carry gun laws have higher rates of gun homicide.

The results also showed that higher levels of gun ownership are associated with more mass shootings.

The study suggests the US could reduce gun violence by lowering levels of gun ownership and passing stricter concealed-carry laws.

Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

The "good guy with a gun" theory goes like this: If more well-intentioned people carry guns, there's a higher chance of stopping a violent shooter.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works in real life, according to new research published in the journal Justice Quarterly. The study found that laws allowing more people to carry guns in public are associated with a rise in gun violence. The results also showed that the higher a state's gun-ownership rate, the more likely a mass shooting is.

Bullshit. The crime rate went down in every state that adopted concealed carry. It's almost certain the study is based on flawed assumptions.

Should I even bother asking for a source?

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth

Yeah dude. No one ever said people haven’t defended themselves with guns. That is completely besides the point of what this article is saying is that “a good guy with a gun” does nothing to prevent mass shootings. More gun ownership is correlated with more gun violence. These are the facts that matter.

Mass shootings aren't a problem anywhere near as bad as all the blacks killing each other in democrat cities.

THAT actually deserves your attention but we all know you're too cowardly to create a topic on the subject.

Uh no it’s only your dumbass who is making this about race.